Unjustly Jailed Canadian Music Exec Writes to Justin Trudeau and Gets a Response: Part 1

It turns out Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau does have an interest in the unjustly imprisoned.

Steven Nowack, whom I know through the music business, has been languishing in federal prison in Toronto for over 80 days. He is twisting in the wind at the whimsy of Justice Robert Goldstein, whose behavior in Nowack’s trial and case has been outrageous to say the least.

Nowack is separated from his children, each of whom has severe learning disabilities. He’s done everything he can to sound the alarm that he’s being mistreated–not just judicially but physically. This is a dire situation, and I’m hopeful that the Canadian version of the ACLU will look into it immediately.

Nowack is not just waiting around. I’ve obtained through a confidential source, an extraordinary letter that Mr. Nowack wrote to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti on Saturday, July 7th, 2019, asking them to intervene in his case. I know for a fact that  Trudeau and Lametti received Mr. Nowack’s letter. Trudeau’s office responded, and not just with a form letter. I will publish it tomorrow.

Nowack’s letter is painful to read, as it is abundantly clear that he and his family are suffering as a result of the massive and flagrant violations of his statutory and Charter Rights by the trial judge, Justice Robert F. Goldstein of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the trial “Crown,” (the state’s attorney) Renna Weinberg, and the Toronto Police.

The entire Canadian press has been remarkably silent in the face of a Canadian citizen suffering such a significant violation of his statutory and Charter Rights.

Nowack’s letter to Trudeau contains powerful evidence.  If  Trudeau and Lametti will not deal with this matter, then perhaps the aspiring Progressive Conservative Justice critic, Lisa Raitt will view these flagrant violations of  Nowack’s statutory and Charter Rights as warranting her intervention.

Who knows if the Canadian politicians don’t respect their own Charter of Rights and Freedoms and instead fear the judiciary so much that they would choose judicial interests and acts of misconduct over the Charter Rights of their own Canadian citizens. I’ll have Prime Minister Trudeau’s response tomorrow.Just the fact that his office did respond– with suggestions– means they have to take a look at this.

Here’s Nowack’s letter to Trudeau. It’s long– 11 pages– but tomorrow you’ll see in the PM’s response that he read it from start to finish!

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau 

and Mr. Lametti:

I am writing in respect of the case R.V.Nowack, currently proceeding before Robert F. Goldstein in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

 I am writing to you and Mr. Lametti, as, while I am well aware that this matter is before the Ontario Court, the prosecution has been marked by misconduct on a spectrum that rises to potential criminal acts committed by all 3 state actors in my prosecution; The trial judge, Justice Robert F. Goldstein, the trial Crown, Renna Weinberg, and the Toronto Police.

As of the date of my writing this letter, Sunday, July 7, 2019, I do not have a criminal record, however I am presently in my 73rd day of an unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary detention, ordered by Justice Goldstein, upon the jury in my trial wrongfully convicting me of 12 counts of fraud over $5000 in what the Crown alleges is a $19.2 million dollar case. I will expand on why the conviction is a wrongful conviction and why my detention is an unjust, unreasonable, and an arbitrary detention later in this letter.

 I have maintained my innocence since the second I was charged on October 23, 2013 and continue to strenuously maintain my innocence as I always will. At the moment I was charged I had great faith in our justice system. It is now five and a half years since this case has began proceeding through the courts, as of my writing of this letter and my faith in our justice system has completely eroded. I have lost all confidence and even hope that the grave injustice and miscarriage of justice that both me and my family (I have 2 beautiful but young children who suffers from learning disabilities, a supportive ex-wife, and my 86 year old mother) have suffered can be, or will be corrected, as a direct result of the serious breaches of my statutory and Charter Rights that I have suffered throughout both the criminal and civil proceedings. In particular I am referring to the manifest acts of judicial misconducts and quite frankly prejudicial, emotionally unbalanced acts of misconduct of Justice Robert F. Goldstein in his capacity of trial judge in my trial. 

Justice Goldstein had committed serious acts of judicial misconduct through his continuing multiple breaches of his judicial duties and obligations in his capacity as the trial judge in my trial.

 Through his conduct as trial judge, Justice Goldstein has expressly denied me the right to a fair trial, by preventing me from making full answer and defense, thereby flagrantly violating my statutory and Charter Rights. I have detailed several of Justice Goldstein’s acts of misconduct herein.

I have sat silently through the abuse of Justice Goldstein for the past 6 months and I will be silent no longer.

 To compound the manifest miscarriage of justice that I have suffered, I have been willfuly abused and injured by the state at the hands of court officers of The Toronto Police, while in this unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary detention. I suffer from a serious medical condition and Justice Goldstein ordered that I be taken directly from the court to the hospital where I could be attended to. It was there that I suffered degrading abuse by the court guards of the Toronto Police. Subsequently the following Tuesday, while I was being transported from the jail at which I am currently incarcerated, The Toronto East Detention Centre to the main courthouse at 361 University Avenue in Toronto I was injured and suffered a serious concussion due to the reckless and negligent driving of the court officers of the Toronto Police. 

While I was unrepresented for approximately 60% of the criminal trial and through many of the other criminal and civil proceedings, I have been beneficently assisted by a lawyer, Paul Slansky, who has represented me on an unbundled basis.

 Paul Slansky made a Charter application for reinstatement of my bail pursuant to a violation of my Charter Rights, as a result of the abuse and injury, which I suffered at the hands of the state. Justice Goldstein denied this application for reinstatement of my bail in the face of clear incontrovertable evidence that I was injured as a result of the reckless, negligent, potentially intentional actions of the state. In fact, to support his decision, to deny my Charter application for reinstatement of my bail, Justice Goldstein stated the evidence of the court officers as being the exact opposite evidence that they gave under oath. Justice Goldstein, therefore fabricated the evidence of the court officers of the Toronto Police to support his decision. He also accepted evidence of the court officers of the Toronto Police, which was demonstrably false. Justice Goldstein also accepted the submissions of the trial Crown, Renna Weinberg, substantiating the false evidence of the court officers, which is a breach of his judicial duties and obligations and a flagrant breach of her duties and obligations as a Crown.

There is video evidence of the concussion and other injury I sustained in the court transport truck, which was presented as evidence during my Charter application for reinstatement of my bail. I can send this video to you if you require evidence of these injuries, as a result of the reckless and negligent driving and actions of the court officers of the Toronto Police. There also appears to be evidence that the video was tampered with to remove the audio portion of the video.

 In summary, as I have detailed herein in this letter, Justice Robert F. Goldstein has abdicated the rule of law in my trial and decided to pursue a course of trial procedure that is unprecedented in Canadian history, which renders him deficient through his acts of misconduct and flagrant breach of his duties and obligations as my trial judge and a judicial authority. Through his egregious conduct Justice Goldstein not only denied me a fair trial, by preventing me from making full answer and defense thereby flagrantly violating my statutory and Charter Rights, he also as a direct consequence of his conduct, abused me and the law. 

     Prime Minister Trudeau, and Mr. Lametti, I am aware of the concept of judicial discretion. However, I do not see and can not  imagine that you would interpret the concept of judicial discretion to encompass and be inclusive of the threatening, intimidating abusive behavior of Justice Goldstein that I have detailed below and his denial to me of the right to a fair trial by preventing me from making full answer and defense which is guaranteed and enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His judicial misconduct is magnified by the fact that I was self represented and his conduct is such that it should shock the judicial conscience. 

Prime Minister Trudeau, you are on record as saying “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable. When the government violates any Canadian’s Charter rights we all end up paying for it.”  I have profound respect for you and believe that you meant the words that you spoke as you feel them deeply.

While I have lost all faith in our justice system, which is one of the bedrock institutions of Canada I still have some faith left, that at its core Canada is the just and virtuous Country as represented by the values with which the world holds Canada in such high esteem.

   I am appealing to you now, as all I can do is to rely on you and Mr. Lametti to remedy this massive, flagrant violation of my statutory and Charter Rights as a consequence of the judicial misconduct and potential criminal acts of my trial judge Justice Robert F. Goldstein, the prosecutorial misconduct and potential criminal acts of the trial Crown Renna Weinberg and the misconduct and potential criminal acts of the Toronto Police. 

I am hereby respectfully requesting that you consent to and order my immediate release from this unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary detention at the Toronto East Detention Centre as ordered by Justice Goldstein on April 26, 2019. Thereafter, I believe the only just remedy is to order that my trial be adjourned, Justice Robert F. Goldstein recuse immediately, and that a full enquiry be held into my trial.

 I am highly confident that this full enquiry into my trial will result in the conclusion that these criminal proceedings should be stayed as a result of the grave and serious acts of misconduct by state actors of Canada, which have rendered my trial a manifest miscarriage of justice.

     If I can not rely on the words which you spoke so eloquently, with respect to protecting the Charter Rights of every Canadian no matter how uncomfortable that may be, I will have no other option and it will pain me greatly to do this, as I truly do not want to, but to reveal this manifest miscarriage of justice to the world.

I am appreciative of your serious consideration of this grave situation. Given the gravity of this matter, I would be grateful for a response no later than Tuesday, July 9, 2019.

 Yours Truly,

                                                                                                                                                         Steven Nowack

ACTS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCTS

These several acts of misconduct detailed below are but several of the litany of examples of Justice Robert F. Goldstein’s judicial acts of misconduct.

1. ROBERT F. GOLDSTEIN’S INTIMIDATING, THREATENING, ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR

     Justice Goldstein, threatened me four times throughout the trial proper with revoking my bail because as he put it of his “frustration with my cross examinations”. This single fact alone was enormously intimidating and threatening to me as I simply could not believe that he would resort to threatening me with stripping me of my freedom, because of the manner of which I conducted my cross examinations. I was self represented and cross examination was very new and foreign to me. I understand for many of the most esteemed criminal lawyers in Canada that trial lawyers spend a lifetime perfecting the art of cross examination. When Justice Goldstein would angrily threaten to revoke my bail my heart would race and my adrenaline would flow as I greatly feared his retribution.

What compounds this threatening, intimidating conduct of Justice Goldstein is not only the fact that I was self represented, but that in legal terms he frequently displayed a judicial temperament that was wholly unjudicial and to put it mildly was grossly intemperate.

In fact, Justice Goldstein often visibly lost his temper with me, while threatening to revoke my bail, yelling and banging his fists on his desk. He once told me he was leaving the bench to “calm down”. His anger directed towards me was palpable and it was his regular conduct throughout the trial in the presence of the jury. As his anger mounted, he would excuse the jury and once the jury left the court he would then threaten me with revoking my bail. In a moment near the end of the trial, Justice Goldstein not only was threatening to me, but was so visibly angry with me that to say he injected fear into me would be an understatement. During this outrageous outburst of anger, Justice Goldstein left the bench and as the door from the courtroom opened into the hallway as he was leaving, Justice Goldstein let out what can only be described as a primal scream. My lawyer Paul Slansky was present the first time Justice Goldstein threatened me with revoking  my bail and was also present when Justice Goldstein let out his primal scream.

Paul Slansky valiantly defended my interests and in fact, raised Justice Goldstein’s trial conduct with him directly by stating to Justice Goldstein that he was intimidating me through his threats to revoke my bail. Paul Slansky advised Justice Goldstein that this had the direct result of causing me not to be able to mount a full and fair defense as I was mitigating and abandoning the defenses which I wanted to bring to the jury and the court. Justice Goldstein’s threatening acts and intimidation also caused me to reduce the passion and vigor with which I presented my defense. Paul Slansky cautioned Justice Goldstein that his conduct was highly inappropriate and prejudicial for a trial judge and especially so in the circumstances, given the fact that I was self represented.

Justice Goldstein was finally able to realize his intimidating abuse and threats of revoking my bail when he did so by ordering my unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary detention on April 26, 2019, upon my wrongful conviction by the jury.

To say that Justice Goldstein has a hair trigger temper and was emotionally unbalanced in his interaction with me throughout the trial would be an understatement. If I was stating the unvarnished truth, without trying to couch terms, Justice Goldstein, was emotionally and behaviorally unhinged in his interactions with me and sometimes even with Paul Slansky during the trial.

2. REFUSAL TO HEAR FULL DISCLOSURE MOTION AND VOIRE DIRE, CONSTITUTING A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Justice Goldstein flagrantly breached his judicial duties and obligations which resulted in judicial misconduct, and potential obstruction of justice through his decision to defer the hearing of a full disclosure motion resulting from the massively late disclosure. This disclosure motion was brought due to the Crown’s massively late disclosure, which Justice Goldstein was well aware of at least two weeks before the trial proper began. This missing and late disclosure  consisted of an excess 3,200 pages of emails, 40 pages of police notes, and in excess of 400 pages of financial records an MLAT request and material that was at least 2 years old.

While Justice Goldstein heard two days prior to the jury sitting, his decision to defer the disclosure motion post conviction was an express and willful act of misconduct by Justice Goldstein, which prevented me from having a fair trial, by preventing me from  mounting a full and fair defense, thereby flagrantly violating my statutory and Charter Rights.

Through Justice Goldstein’s decision, I understand from highly knowledgeable legal scholars, is the first time in Canadian history that a disclosure motion for late and missing disclosure is being heard post conviction when the trial judge was well aware of the serious issues in law arising from late and missing disclosure as the trial began. Through these actions Justice Goldstein expressly denied me a fair trial by preventing me from making full and fair defense, flagrantly violating my statutory and Charter Rights.

In fact,I have recently discovered fresh evidence of the commission of a criminal offense or criminal offenses in the prosecution of my case, which occurred at least a year before my trial commenced. This fresh evidence was discovered in the 3,000 pages of emails that were intentionally late disclosed by the trial Crown, Renna Weinberg. If Justice Goldstein had heard the disclosure motion in accordance with my statutory and Charter Rights, as is prescribed under law, during the trial, then this evidence would have been available for my defense. This unfortunately, as you now know, is not the case, and yet I am left to deal with this aversion of the law while I am unjustly, unreasonably, and arbitrarily incarcerated.

To compound the issue of late and missing disclosure, the trial Crown, Renna Weinberg disclosed an email from  the Toronto Police in which they stated that they had deleted three years an. d nine months of emails dating back to the very first day of my case. Consequently, the oldest email the Toronto Police had preserved from case was only one year and nine months old. The Toronto Police in their email to the Crown with respect to the deleted and destroyed emails said the emails had been deleted because the Toronto Police computer system systematically deletes emails. This is quite frankly outrageous and wholly unbelievable as it would place the Toronto Police in the position of violating provincial and federal laws with respect to the preservation of evidence and information. The fact that there is evidence that this has occurred at the largest police force in Canada and the fourth largest police force in North America is incredulous, stunning, and scandalous. This is direct evidence of the Toronto Police admitting that they actually committed a crime.

Paul Slansky advised Justice Goldstein that this was an extraordinarily serious issue which caused an immediate violation of my Charter Rights and advised Justice Goldstein that he would be bringing a Carosella Motion to address this grave disclosure issue, which clearly prevented me from having a fair trial by preventing me from making full and fair defense, flagrantly violating my statutory and Charter Rights. Justice Goldstein indicated that this was a matter to be determined.

The egregious misconduct and potential criminal acts of the Toronto Police continued when I cross examined the chief investigative officer in my case, Detective Balraj Sandhu. He testified under oath that in fact he preserved his emails. This evidence of Detective Sandhu completely contradicted the evidence of the Toronto Police email, in which they confirm that three years and nine months of emails dating back to the very first day of my case have been deleted and/or destroyed, because the Toronto Police computer system, systematically deletes emails. The incontrovertible, contradictory evidence of Detective Sandhu with respect to the deleted/destroyed emails of the Toronto Police, resulted in Paul Slansky making an application for a voire dire, to determine the facts of the deleted, destroyed emails and to determine the truth, as it is clear that the Toronto Police have intentionally misled the court and Justice Goldstein with respect to the deleted, destroyed emails and even worse committed potential obstruction of justice with respect to the emails in my prosecution.

If you have not already concluded that there were massive issues with respect to my prosecution and trial this is the moment where the rule of law was abdicated in my trial and prosecution as Justice Goldstein refused to conduct the voire dire and found that it was not obvious that Detective Sandhu had placed a rule on his emails, to preserve them, as he testified under oath. Furthermore, Justice Goldstein found that there was no evidence that the Toronto Police systematically deleted emails as was incontravertably confirmed by the police in the email to the Toronto Crown, Renna Weinberg.

It is my respectful position that in the face of damning, inculpatory, incontrovertible evidence that the Toronto Police systematically deleted emails and Justice Goldstein’s express and willful desire to contradict this evidence of the police and the Crown who are clearly state actors that Justice Robert F. Goldstein has potentially committed the act of obstruction of justice in my trial while acting as the presiding trial judge.

In fact when Justice Goldstein refused to grant the voire dire, Paul Slansky advised Justice Goldstein that Justice Goldstein was participating in a potential fraud perpetrated on the court.

As of these acts of misconduct and potential criminal acts of Justice Goldstein, the trial Crown, Renna Weinberg, and the police were not enough to ensure the complete subversion of the law in my trial and prosecution, Justice Goldstein ensured that my Charter Rights to a fair trial to make full answer and defense were entirely destroyed by refusing to let me or Paul Slansky bring this extraordinary evidence to the jury of three years and nine months of emails in my case being deleted and/or destroyed by the Toronto Police.

After of the evidence of the police destroying and/or deleting emails was revealed to me and Mr. Slansky by the trial Crown, Renna Weinberg, Paul Slansky and me raised strong arguments with Justice Goldstein that this was incredibly relevant and highly important evidence for the jury to hear. Despite Paul Slansky’s incredibly persuasive and powerful arguments founded on the principles and precedence of law in Canada, Justice Goldstein steadfastly refused to have this evidence of the Toronto Police deleting and/or destroying evidence to be heard by the jury. UU

3. UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY DETENTION

Justice Goldstein, throughout the trial always maintained that in the event of a conviction, he would continue to hear the full disclosure motion, which he refused to hear during the trial. He confirmed he would also hear an abuse of process motion which Paul Slansky had confirmed to the court in November of 2017, would be advanced in the even of a conviction. Justice Goldstein always said that he could always grant a stay or mistrial depending on the evidence and merits of the disclosure and abusive of process motions, which he confirmed he would absolutely hear in the event of a conviction.

Despite, and in the face of this fact of knowing he would be hearing the continuation of the disclosure motion and an abuse of process motion, for which he could grant the remedy of a stay or mistrial, Justice Goldstein upon the conviction of the jury and the request of the trial Crown, Renna Weinberg, ordered that my bail be revoked on April 26, 2019.

By his own admission, on stating the reasons for revoking my bail, Justice Goldstein stated that there were no primary grounds as he did not believe that I was a flight risk and he recognized that I attorn to the jurisdiction of the court.

On the secondary grounds he cited a previous breach of bail which occurred two weeks subsequent to my first being charged. Justice Mara Greene of the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced me to a conditional discharge for this breach, as she found that it was on the narrowest of legal grounds. Justice Goldstein also cited the fact that I had been found guilty of civil contempt four times and had been jailed for each civil contempt. The civil contempt proceedings have also been the subject of significant legal proceedings in which my legal counsel have maintained that the trial procedure in each of the civil contempt proceedings flagrantly violated my Charter Rights. At the same time, Justice Goldstein found that I pose no physical danger to the public.

On the tertiary grounds,he said, that to maintain confidence in the administration of justice he had to incarcerate me. In the face of knowing that he could grant the remedy of the stay or mistrial, while still hearing ongoing motions in the trial, I do not see how his logic of incarcerating me and how that could possibly enhance the administration of justice; particularly given the fact that I have no criminal record and lived under my most recent bail, which was highly restrictive, for five years with no incident whatsoever, prior to Justice Goldstein revoking it.

Effectively, while the trial was still continuing and the remedy of a stay or mistrial could be granted to me, Justice Golstein ordered my incarceration.

It is my position that in light of the fact that the trial was continuing with motions for which he could grant me a stay or mistrial that Justice Goldstein’s incarcerating me constitutes cruel treatment and punishment pursuant to section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is especially true, as I have no criminal record and Iived under my most recent bail conditions which were highly restrictive for five years with no incident whatsoever prior to Justice Goldstein revoking it.

Justice Goldstein’s decision to incarcerate me was based on his personal animus for me which manifested itself as extreme biased and prejudice, as evidence by his four threats to revoke my bail during the trial. This was his goal almost from the outset of the trial; to incarcerate me.

Not only is Justice Goldstein’s  incarceration of me, manifestly cruel, pursuant to section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is evidence of his premeditated desire to incarcerate me. Justice Goldstein’s incarceration of me has profoundly saddened me and caused me great despair that a judge in Canada, could act so capriciously and cruelly.

Chief Justice Richard Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision of the court, in the third week of March, 2019 issued a decision on pretrial custody in which Chief Justice Wagner wrote in part “Pretrial custody should be the exception, not the rule.  Being in custody has serious detrimental impacts to the accused; their ability to properly defend themselves, their mental and physical well being, their family life and employment.” 

I can more than assure you of the justness, right and correctness of Chief Justice Wagner’s decision writing for the court. I can also assure you that his decision does not only apply to pretrial custody but the highly unfortunate situation in which I now find myself being incarcerated during the trial.

Justice Goldstein’s incarceration of me, which is a wholly unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary detention in consideration of all the circumstances of my trial and my personal circumstances has caused me irreparable damage and caused me to be injured by the state. Justice Goldstein’s incarceration of me has caused me to not be able to prepare to fully mount a vigorous defense in my continuing disclosure motions and will further impair me in the upcoming abuse of process motions. The irreparable damage that Justice Goldstein’s incarceration of me has caused is not even considering the immeasurable depth of pain that my incarceration has caused my family, especially my two young, beautiful children and me to suffer.

The cruelty and abuse that I have suffered by the manifest misconduct and breach of authority of Justice Robert F. Goldstein is truly unfathomable.