CHARLES ENNIS LIAR

DEFINITION – LIAR: A person who tells lies.

NOTE: That Charles Ennis prides himself on informing those around him of his lengthy career as a police officer in Vancouver. Taking every opportunity to espouse on what a stellar and upstanding and righteous and truthful police officer he was. After reviewing the many lies told by Ennis in such a short space of time (listed below) would anyone believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

ENNIS STATEMENT: “Speaking from my decades of experience with the Vancouver Police Department during which I was involved in the successful prosecution of multiple sex assault cases: The sexual assault that formed the basis of the complaint in the London General Assembly incident in 2016 involved a threat and an indirect act and gesture to apply force, and therefore was certainly an assault as defined by the CCC. It was reported to the police and the victim chose not to pursue a criminal case due to the victim’s past experience with a previous prosecution in which she was the victim”.

RESPONSE: Ennis states that the incident was reported to the police, yet no one was ever interviewed by the police. No police report was ever produced. No police complaint number. No police complaint statement. Ennis also states that “the victim chose not to pursue a criminal case due to the victim’s past experience with a previous prosecution in which she was the victim”. Could that be because no such incident ever occurred.

ENNIS STATEMENT: “At the Inclusivity and Diversity presentation at the 2019 General Assembly, Grace Nelson claimed that she’d been advised by a “paralegal” that a sexual assault required the offender to “touch the victim’s private parts”. It now appears that she likely got that incorrect advice from Kelly”.

RESPONSE: That statement by Ennis is an outright lie, I know because I am the John Kelly that Ennis is falsely accusing, and the first time I heard about any General Assembly was on the 17th October 2019.

ENNIS STATEMENT: “I found quite a number of emails on the subject of convicted fraudster John Kelly”.

RESPONSE: That statement by Ennis is an outright lie, I know because I am the John Kelly that Ennis is falsely accusing.

ENNIS STATEMENT: ” I understand that Kelly has done time for criminal libel against police officers “.

RESPONSE: Another outright lie by Ennis. I know because I am the John Kelly that Ennis is falsely accusing.

ENNIS STATEMENT: ” in the past Kelly was investigated by the RCMP for misrepresenting himself as a “paralegal”.

RESPONSE: That statement by Ennis is also an outright lie, I know because I am the John Kelly that Ennis is falsely accusing.

ENNIS STATEMENT: ” I do not have all the details that Robyn has substantiating his belief that Roger shared confidential information to unauthorized parties”.

RESPONSE: That statement by Ennis is also an outright lie, as there are no details, and Robyn as in Enniss’s cohort Robyn Foret does not have any substantiating details.

HOW MANY LIES ARE TOO MANY: The following are just some of the questions placed to Charles Ennis regarding the written statements he provided to Chris Gainor and others in their campaign against Roger and Grace Nelson. Ennis was asked to provide further and better particulars to corroborate the statements he had made as being truthful.

Ennis has steadfastly refused to respond. Chris Gainor is no longer relying on those statements, that he Gainor forwarded to the Nelsons as evidence of wrongdoings, and has taken no action against Ennis.

Q. How did Grace Nelson confront you.
Q. What details do you have and from whom, that substantiates Robyn Forets belief, that Roger Nelson shared confidential information to unauthorized parties.
Q. How has Roger Nelson danced around subjects.
Q. What minimizing comments has Roger Nelson made.
Q. How does it appear (as you state) that, she likely got that incorrect advice from Kelly.
Q. What comments, made in-camera, give you reason to state that, Kelly has convinced Roger of this inaccurate interpretation of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Q. When did, as you state, this group bring Kelly into the case in an attempt to achieve this.
Q. Please provide proof that confidential information was shared with John Kelly.
Q. Please provide proof that, as you state, Kelly has convinced them either that his interpretation of law is legal, or that illegal action is justified to save the offender.
Q. What demonstrated past actions by John Kelly are you speaking of.
Q. Please provide proof of when as you state John Kelly was convicted of fraud.
Q. Please provide proof of when as you state John Kelly has intimidated Board members into revealing details of the Calgary investigation.
Q. Please provide proof as you state, that John Kelly did time for criminal libel against police officers.
Q. Please provide proof as you state, that John Kelly did time for interfering with witnesses in a homicide case.
Q. Please provide proof as you state, that John Kelly was investigated by the RCMP for (as you state) misrepresenting himself as a “paralegal” to the witnesses in a homicide case.

Q. Mr. Ennis, if it is found at the end of this process, that a person has submitted a statement to Mr. Gainor, and it is found that much of the contents of that statement, are false, and that they have done so, in furtherance of having Roger and Grace Nelson removed from the RASC, do you believe that whichever person has done that, should themselves be removed from the RASC themselves.

DO YOU STILL BELIEVE CHARLES ENNIS TO BE TRUSTWORTY. I SURE DON’T.

This website is a work in progress.

NOTE: I can be reached via e-mail at: johnkelly475@yahoo.ca