This title is printed to order. This book may have been self-published. If so, we cannot guarantee the quality of the content. In the main most books will have gone through the editing process however some may not. We therefore suggest that you be aware of this before ordering this book. If in doubt check either the author or publisher’s details as we are unable to accept any returns unless they are faulty. Please contact us if you have any questions.
Scapegoat-The Scales of Justice Burning is a book about my life and how my name was used to assist a large corporation avoid corporate responsibility and the consequences of a bad decision. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that their decision was in bad faith and upheld a lower court judgment of one million dollars against Pilot Insurance Company. To the surprise of the author, they also named him as a catalyst in creating a train of thought with the decision makers of Pilot Insurance Company and also aligned him as one of the decision makers. This book is the author’s attempt to prove with evidence compiled from the very court where he was never called to testify, that he was not a decision maker who made the decision to deny their insured’s claim, and did not evoke a train of thought as described in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Scapegoat-The Scales of Justice Burning is also about the implications of abusing a person’s name as if it carries no meaning or purpose. As exemplified by the description of some of my own ancestors, there is clearly more meaning in a person’s name than the disrespect shown by the Supreme Court of Canada. A court that truly believes that its status is greater than the citizens it serves and the government that appoints Supreme Court of Canada Justices. Scapegoat-The Scales of Justice Burning has been a crusade that restores democratic rights for individual citizens of Canada and to confront those who would burn down the very foundation of justice. Natural justice has not been served. It is uncanny that in a democratic society, there would be no mechanism in place for judicial review and correction to address an injustice whereby one’s reputation is damaged by comments made by a high court.
