Jessica Yaniv Simpson VS Donald Smith, Keean Bexte, David Menzies

auditorium benches chairs class

Jessica Yaniv aka Jessica Simpson, formerly known as Jonathan Yaniv, an up-and-coming vexatious litigant, had two appearances in today’s tele-conference hearing at the Surrey Provincial Court. Both Yaniv appearances were primarily to set dates, as per the court document in Room 309. The first claim was Yaniv v Smith and the second hearing was Bexte and Menzies v Yaniv.

There were a few accidental references to make male pronoun references such as, “Mr. Yaniv’s”, before rebutted by the Judge. However, that judge was pretty annoyed with both cases given his stern tone, which I cannot blame him given the nuisance that Yaniv brings before them in court.

By @divebomberinc:

Yaniv v Smith

I did to the best of my ability, to recall today’s events after listening in to the call as a member of the public.

First up for Yaniv was a follow-up from August 14, 2020 proceeding. This pertained to the default order that was originally set aside because Yaniv was told there was no jurisdiction in small claims court when Simpson and Smith were before the judge. Simpson’s claim was withdrawn by Yaniv, but not Yaniv refused to withdraw the one against Smith despite having a second lawsuit. However, in fairness, there was confusion with the courts regarding COVID-19 and Smith’s ability to file a reply previously that was addressed. It is believed from reviewing my notes, the judge on August 14, 2020, earlier may have given unclear instructions to all parties.

Before things got started, Yaniv made an unsubstantiated allegation to both the Madame Registrar and again to the judge accusing “Chris Taylor” and “Kari Simpson” of “recording court proceedings” and posting online. Yaniv proceeded to tell the judge that the RCMP had informed Simpson to essentially refrain from this, which is patently false. The judge had addressed all present to not record any proceedings.

It was addressed there was no settlement conference on the matter and the judge had concerns about a reply, which Smith asked for Kari Simpson, Smith’s lay disability advocate, to speak on his behalf because of his intellectual disabilities and autism, due to difficulty communicating and articulating himself with cohesive arguments.

The judge was very difficult looking through the “soft file” claiming reply. Simpson tried to convey the circumstances, but the judge kept not hearing Simpson out. I believe the background noise that emerged was likely Yaniv trying to be disruptive. Simpson tried to convey the matter where she posted the surety, . Once Simpson referred to Yaniv as “he”, causing the outburst, “It is she, Kari, don’t be like this!” It seemed that this may have been a catalyst to have angered the judge and he claims Simpson was “arguing incorrectly”. The judge was not satisfied with Kari Simpson’s intervention on the matter, which the judge at this point had reinstated the default judgement. It almost sounded like Yaniv boasted about winning briefly, but it was hard to ascertain with the quality of the call.

Yaniv tried to chime in that Simpson is “not a [lay] disability advocate, but “an anti-LGBTQ advocate” before accusing Simpson again of recording proceedings. However, the judge would not let Simpson speak any further on Smith’s behalf. Simpson and Yaniv both spoke, before the judge wanted to speak directly with Smith. The judge tried to convey the abstract concept of the default judgement, but when Smith asked to speak, conveying he was harassed, threatened and maliciously prosecuted, including the RCMP investigation on Yaniv, that I can verify is currently underway.

Smith conveyed he was frustrated regarding the circumstances of the harassment, threats and malicious prosecution by Yaniv. When Smith used the words “lying” and “perjury”, the judge was not happy. However, when Smith asked for an additional extension to formerly file a reply, he was granted it overturning Yaniv’s nearly default order. The judge then conceded it was supposed to go, which the judge ordered he did not want Simpson to further act on this matter for Smith.

Yaniv tried another attack on Simpson and Smith, as well as tried to ask for a “contempt order” against Simpson, but was denied because it was “civil court”, but not “criminal court”.

Yaniv then tried another opportunity to attack Simpson to the judge “not sign in to [the] proceedings” and “budged herself into the proceedings”. In conclusion, the judge offered Smith three additional days for Smith to make an “official reply by Monday September 14, 2020 at 4:00 PM PST or default judgement would be reinstated” and further ordered Simpson was no longer allowed to intervene or speak on the matter.

Yaniv needed the last word, as Smith left the call, and tried to state the words “abuse that you received” in what I thought was a very poor attempt at flattery. The judge stopped Yaniv and asked move along to their next case which was right after this one.

By @jymeowmix: Menzies and Bexte v Yaniv

There was a hearing today, September 9, 2020, between Keean Bexte and David Menzies lawyers and Jessica Yaniv Simpson. The Rebel Media lawyers argued unsuccessfully that Yaniv’s counterclaim against them should be thrown out. It will not be.

The Judge stated that the Rebel lawyers were wrong in their assertion that Yaniv’s pleadings were without substance. The Judge informed Yaniv that their statements about defamation could not be used, but there were other pleadings made that could support Yaniv’s pleadings that the Rebel reporters were a nuisance and trespassed.

To be clear – the Judge did not give the pleadings merit or validity. In fact, he specifically stated that he was not speaking to the validity of the pleadings – simply the fact that they do allege a cause of action exists. With that in mind, the Judge would not dismiss Yaniv’s counterclaim. In essence, he was saying Yaniv is making a claim that could theoretically have merit but Yaniv would need to prove it in court.

The Judge instructed Yaniv and Rebel to attend a settlement conference, and warned Yaniv that the Judge at that conference may warn Yaniv that he has no case. If Yaniv chooses to ignore the Judge’s guidance that he has no likelihood of success, Yaniv triggers a court rule that says that if proceeds to trial and doesn’t succeed he will be penalized harshly – I believe it is double costs against Yaniv. To me, it sounded like Yaniv was being warned, but you know Jonny – he won’t listen to anyone except himself.

Related posts

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial