Appeal Made to the Court of Appeal for Ontario

In reference to this post, Justice Sylvia Corthorn has dismissed on February 10, 2021 the case against antipope Jorge Bergoglio and the others named in the claim.  You may read her full endorsement here.  In Paragraph 51, she states the following:

The plaintiffs have made an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Ontario with a file date of March 23, 2021.  You may read the appeal here.  The response to the appeal is still in progress.

8 thoughts on “Appeal Made to the Court of Appeal for Ontario”

  1. Good Day,
    We are interested in the Court Decision that will result from the Appeal made on the First Instance regarding the above-mentioned issue. If someone has the government site where the justice department uploads the decisions, please forward it to us.

    Thank You, and may the Appeals Court respond properly in favor of the people and the law.

  2. The New World Order, has taking the people of Earth, and forced us into servitude!!!! The only way freedom will show it’s face will be in the wake of a world wide Revoluion. I stand ready to fight, we are brothers, and sisters in arms. Freedom has never been free!!!!

    • We have been in a revolution since King Henry VIII. Catholics are not revolutionaries. We are counterrevolutionaries. We want to restore Christendom.

      • To restore the faith, the satanic laws need to be repealed and God’s law installed and it has to happen before everyone is dead or dying from the jabs. Here in Greece, we have been fighting for 11 years and people are getting depressed and giving in. We need to push back and hold up those that are exhausted from fighting and seeing no results.

        • When Jesus went into the Temple and saw people trading and selling and doing business, He turned their tables upside down and he whipped them. Someones in addition to prayer and sacrifice, we need to pull out the whips. They are going after the children. God’s children. They want to “shot poison right into their veins” as Gates said in one of his interviews only he did not say the word poison, he said vaccine. Same difference. He needs a good whipping.

  3. This is right out of Black’s Law 4th Edition and the Justice is WRONG in the Interpretation
    FRIVOLOUS. An answer is “frivolous” where it
    appears from bare inspection to be lacking in
    legal sufficiency, and, where in any view of the
    facts pleaded, it does not present a defense. Neefus
    v. Neefus, 209 Minn. 495, 296 N.W. 579, 581.
    Any pleading is called “frivolous” when it is clear-
    ly insufficient on its face, and does not controvert
    the material points of the opposite pleading,
    and is presumably interposed for mere purposes
    of delay or to embarrass the opponent. Erwin
    v. Lowery, 64 N.C. 321; Strong v. Sproul, 53 N.Y.
    499; Gray v. Gidiere, 4 Strob., S.C., 442; In re
    Beam, 93 N.J.Eq. 593, 117 A. 613, 614


Leave a Comment