Andrei Korottchenko Isaacs and Co Lawyer

Andrei Korottchenko Isaacs and Co Lawyer

THE DIRTY ARMY:  Andrei Korottchenko is a lawyer from Toronto Canada but has a dark side. Being in the legal profession myself, I thought I’d visit the court house to see what all this issue is surrounding this lawyer. According to public court records: law suits against him show that he looks for vulnerable women on dating applications and forces them into intimacy too soon. He did this with one girl who according to the record, stated that she felt bad the following day and told him this in texts. Then he made a defamatory website to defame her on where he released all of her confidential court records to the site to harm her reputation. After that, he started contacting her work to interfere with her ability to book television and radio appearances for her singing career. He then sent threatening text messages stating that he would be contacting some of her enemies (other not so great men) to conspire against her and find ways to ruin her life. When she contacted him to try to reason with him, he used his lawyer status to have her charged for harassment. He then risked his job to conspire to commit perjury when he had her falsely charged for breaching a bail condition, which stated she was not to communicate with him except through legal counsel. Her record label retained a lawyer to send a notice to him, but Andrei told the police that the lawyer said he was not retained. In the court record, there is a retainer agreement, and a letter and texts from the retained lawyer stating that Andrei would have known he was retained and that Andrei seemed very “nosy and revengeful” and was “fishing for more confidential information to use against the girl.” The girl was released from bail with a lesser restriction that she can communicate with Andrei directly now. The lawyer also stated that Andrei is “most likely responsible for the defamatory website made against her” stating that: “Only a lawyer or someone with a legal profession could have had access to all of the information displayed on the website.” Andrei’s go to motto is that “lawyers don’t have special privileges” well… looks like he thinks he does… He’s facing multiple law suits, law society complaints and criminal investigations for conspiring to commit perjury. Not someone you want to meet on a dating site… When will he be disbarred?

 

https://thedirty.com/?p=2255516

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

  1. VictoriaJanuary 24, 2019 at 9:04 AM

    Andrei has been apparently working with Luke Halstead to have a girl Jade Naraine falsely charged on an ongoing basis for sending legal letters and just a few text messages asking the men to leave her alone. Luke sexually assaulted Jade and had a violent past as a criminal where he did 15 months imprisonment for assault.

    From an anonymous source. We are pointing you here to publicly available information, with references on CanLii. We want to be of assistance but will remain anonymous.

    Citation: Roth v. Halstead, 2017 ONCJ 593 – 2017-07-31
    From the Judgment of Justice O’Connell:

    [24] In July of 2010, the father brought an ex parte motion for custody of Thomas. According to the father, the mother had quit her job without a contingency plan and could no longer afford her rent and was facing homelessness. Mr. Halstead deposed that the mother was behaving in an increasingly erratic manner and that she was financially and emotionally unstable so he offered to take Thomas for a period of time.
    [25] Mr. Halstead obtained a temporary without prejudice custody order of Thomas and brought him to his home in Pembroke. Mr. Halstead then abandoned his application in August of 2010 when Ms Roth agreed to move to his mother’s basement apartment, where she had lived previously and been assisted by the paternal grandmother. Mr. Halstead returned Thomas to Ms Roth’s primary care shortly after that.
    This is also when Luke’s Court Martial took place according to the public records. The actual date when the ‘offense’ for this court martial took place is unknown, but it can be assumed, based on the seriousness of the charge, it was shortly before the trial:

    It’s assumed that Luke failed to inform the judges, that he was scheduled to attend a court martial only 5 days later to face charges “for having in your possession without lawful excuse a number of blank and live ammunition and different grenades, simulators, basically, pyrotechnic devices.” He was found guilty.

    Citation: R. v. Halstead, 2010 CM 3018 – 2010-09-01
    The Judge noted:
    • “But the quantity is a very serious aggravating factor. You kept a lot, which is very unusual; it’s more than keeping a souvenir in your house.”
    • “The other thing is the type of ammunition; hand grenades, simulators, or trip flares contain substances which are very dangerous, especially—and it brings me to the second aggravating factor I consider—is the place for storing all those things.”
    • “You bring this at your home. You know in the Canadian Forces we keep that in a special place in order to avoid—for security reasons and because we don’t want to have all people accessing this and playing with that. You brought this at your house. So I understand that from your perspective you probably had access to this, but it also means that others may have access to this, and other people that may come in your house, not having a clue how to handle this, and expose themselves to any kind of injury or any other thing.”
    • “…but you didn’t have on your mind how dangerous it could have been if somebody, not knowing how to use this, would have played with that.”
    • “It’s difficult to the court to reconcile the fact that you’re wearing this appointment and that you kept all those things at your home. You should have, at some point, decided to bring back all those things knowing how dangerous it could have been for yourself and anybody else.”

    Citation: R. v. Halstead, [1999] O.J. No. 5418 (SCJ) [MISSING!].
    Referenced in: R. v. Pangan, 2014 ONCJ 327 (CanLII) and R. v. Braithwaite, 2010 MBPC 53 (CanLII)

    From R. v. Braithwaite, 2010:

    [17… In R. v. Halstead, [1999] O.J. No. 5418, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, an offender, with four others, participated in the savage beating of a victim. The victim was chosen at random and attacked for money and to steal his stereo. The group beat him into unconsciousness, broke some of his teeth and permanently mangled one ear. The offender was 19 at the time and lived on the street where he abused alcohol and drugs. He had no prior record and was on bail for nine moths with no problems. He had addressed his substance abuse and was back in school. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment and probation. An important factor was that by the time of sentencing, he did not seem to be a continuing risk to the community. …
    Luke was 17 at the time just turning 18; however, sometimes they get the ages wrong. Information is not always accurate. Luke has allegedly had a criminal record that he had expunged. This was from a period when Luke was an adult. We don’t know the exact date of the 1999 incident or when it was expunged. Since it was expunged, the records cannot be searched.

    Everything else lines up, substance abuse, homelessness etc

    Also, from the Court Martial:

    [12] c. The fact that you did not have an entry on your conduct sheet related to similar offences. Despite the fact that you have a conduct sheet, the entry on it has no relation, as mentioned by your counsel, to the facts or to the kind of offence you are facing today. (This would have been his drug charges, which happened before the army.
    This means that Luke had a separate disciplinary action or hearing while employed full-time by the Canadian Army. We don’t know what that is, but we do know that Luke DID have at least one assault charge for sure. This would be in addition (one would assume) from whatever this indecent on his conduct sheet might be.

    Luke probably fails to tell anyone during trials that he had previously been court martialed and charged with munitions charges. This would have likely affect the court’s decisions based on the fact that the activity Luke seems to admit to doing, is a contravention of the Canadian Firearms Act; and would represent a pattern of firearms abuse.

    [76] However, Mr. Halstead admitted that shortly after the recommendations of the
    JFCS child protection worker and the OCL clinical investigator, Mr. Halstead took Thomas
    to a shooting range on Crown land where Mr. Halstead then created an explosive device
    using Tannerite taped to a saline bag on a propane tank, taped to a tree. He and Thomas then
    watched it explode. This occurred during their two week summer holiday together in July of
    2016.
    [110] Ms Roth believes that despite the OCL recommendations that Thomas not be
    exposed to firearms, the father continues to do so and that the father does not respect Thomas’s wishes in this regard. She cites the Tannerite explosive device incident that occurred during Thomas’s summer holiday with his father in July of 2016 as an example. This incident occurred after the 2016 recommendations of the both the OCL investigator and the children’s aid society that Thomas not be exposed to firearms.
    [267] When told during cross-examination that after the release of the OCL Report and
    recommendations, the father had exposed Thomas to an explosion on a shooting range near
    his property, Ms. Barlas testified that she would be very concerned about this given Thomas’
    clear views and preferences about being exposed to gun activity.
    [313] The father’s decision to arrange for an explosive device to be detonated in a
    shooting range during his summer holidays with Thomas only months after the OCL
    clinician recommended that Thomas not be exposed to guns or gun activity was ill advised to
    say the least and an example of very poor judgment. The father’ evidence that he did not
    recall whether he used a gun to cause the explosion was not credible and simply did not
    accord with common sense.
    As with the pattern of firearms abuse – if Luke was the offender in the earlier assault incident cited in R. v. Braithwaite, 2010; and if the incident on the conduct sheet is at all related to assault, how is it that those records would have been expunged?

    If the facts here are lined up:

    • It seems that Luke maybe have had an assault incident that is sealed due to the fact that he was underaged at the time.

    • He had an assault charge (for which he received probation) expunged as an adult. This was an incident that happened while he was an adult.

    • He has a second (non-munitions) entry on his army conduct sheet that likely the Superior Court did not know about at the time his records were expunged. It seems clear that, as with the munitions charges, he also fails to mention his previous assault-related incidents when he went before the court to request his records be expunged.

    Luke does brag about being able to ‘get out of trouble’ because of his job and uniform as a paramedic. Specifically, multiple traffic violations.

    When an officer stops a person for a traffic violation, is a record kept of the ‘search’ on the license plate, even when no charge or official warning is given to the driver?
    – If so, it’s likely there is a long list of traffic stops associate with Luke, but with no charges or fine levied.

  2. GooJanuary 23, 2019 at 10:40 PM

    Sounds like he’s done a lot of damage. He should not only should he be disbarred but charged criminally for slander and perjury. I would recommend conviction and jail time for the safety of others’ reputation.

  3. Anonymous helperJanuary 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM

    Apparently this man Andrei Korottchenko has been trying to get Jade Naraine falsely charged on an ongoing basis for harassment or breaches for things like sending letters for civil cases or a few texts (According to her site) with Luke Halsted. Halstead is an abuser who was previously convicted of aggravated assault and he allegedly raped Jade.

    From an anonymous source. We are pointing you here to publicly available information, with references on CanLii. We want to be of assistance but will remain anonymous.

    Citation: Roth v. Halstead, 2017 ONCJ 593 – 2017-07-31
    From the Judgment of Justice O’Connell:

    [24] In July of 2010, the father brought an ex parte motion for custody of Thomas. According to the father, the mother had quit her job without a contingency plan and could no longer afford her rent and was facing homelessness. Mr. Halstead deposed that the mother was behaving in an increasingly erratic manner and that she was financially and emotionally unstable so he offered to take Thomas for a period of time.

    [25] Mr. Halstead obtained a temporary without prejudice custody order of Thomas and brought him to his home in Pembroke. Mr. Halstead then abandoned his application in August of 2010 when Ms Roth agreed to move to his mother’s basement apartment, where she had lived previously and been assisted by the paternal grandmother. Mr. Halstead returned Thomas to Ms Roth’s primary care shortly after that.

    This is also when Luke’s Court Martial took place according to the public records. The actual date when the ‘offense’ for this court martial took place is unknown, but it can be assumed, based on the seriousness of the charge, it was shortly before the trial:

    It’s assumed that Luke failed to inform the judges, that he was scheduled to attend a court martial only 5 days later to face charges “for having in your possession without lawful excuse a number of blank and live ammunition and different grenades, simulators, basically, pyrotechnic devices.” He was found guilty.

    Citation: R. v. Halstead, 2010 CM 3018 – 2010-09-01
    The Judge noted:
    • “But the quantity is a very serious aggravating factor. You kept a lot, which is very unusual; it’s more than keeping a souvenir in your house.”
    • “The other thing is the type of ammunition; hand grenades, simulators, or trip flares contain substances which are very dangerous, especially—and it brings me to the second aggravating factor I consider—is the place for storing all those things.”
    • “You bring this at your home. You know in the Canadian Forces we keep that in a special place in order to avoid—for security reasons and because we don’t want to have all people accessing this and playing with that. You brought this at your house. So I understand that from your perspective you probably had access to this, but it also means that others may have access to this, and other people that may come in your house, not having a clue how to handle this, and expose themselves to any kind of injury or any other thing.”
    • “…but you didn’t have on your mind how dangerous it could have been if somebody, not knowing how to use this, would have played with that.”
    • “It’s difficult to the court to reconcile the fact that you’re wearing this appointment and that you kept all those things at your home. You should have, at some point, decided to bring back all those things knowing how dangerous it could have been for yourself and anybody else.”

    Citation: R. v. Halstead, [1999] O.J. No. 5418 (SCJ) [MISSING!].
    Referenced in: R. v. Pangan, 2014 ONCJ 327 (CanLII) and R. v. Braithwaite, 2010 MBPC 53 (CanLII)

    From R. v. Braithwaite, 2010:

    [17… In R. v. Halstead, [1999] O.J. No. 5418, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, an offender, with four others, participated in the savage beating of a victim. The victim was chosen at random and attacked for money and to steal his stereo. The group beat him into unconsciousness, broke some of his teeth and permanently mangled one ear. The offender was 19 at the time and lived on the street where he abused alcohol and drugs. He had no prior record and was on bail for nine moths with no problems. He had addressed his substance abuse and was back in school. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment and probation. An important factor was that by the time of sentencing, he did not seem to be a continuing risk to the community. …

    Luke was 17 at the time just turning 18; however, sometimes they get the ages wrong. Information is not always accurate. Luke has allegedly had a criminal record that he had expunged. This was from a period when Luke was an adult. We don’t know the exact date of the 1999 incident or when it was expunged. Since it was expunged, the records cannot be searched.

    Everything else lines up, substance abuse, homelessness etc

    Also, from the Court Martial:

    [12] c. The fact that you did not have an entry on your conduct sheet related to similar offences. Despite the fact that you have a conduct sheet, the entry on it has no relation, as mentioned by your counsel, to the facts or to the kind of offence you are facing today. (This would have been his drug charges, which happened before the army.

    This means that Luke had a separate disciplinary action or hearing while employed full-time by the Canadian Army. We don’t know what that is, but we do know that Luke DID have at least one assault charge for sure. This would be in addition (one would assume) from whatever this indecent on his conduct sheet might be.

    Luke probably fails to tell anyone during trials that he had previously been court martialed and charged with munitions charges. This would have likely affect the court’s decisions based on the fact that the activity Luke seems to admit to doing, is a contravention of the Canadian Firearms Act; and would represent a pattern of firearms abuse.

    [76] However, Mr. Halstead admitted that shortly after the recommendations of the
    JFCS child protection worker and the OCL clinical investigator, Mr. Halstead took Thomas
    to a shooting range on Crown land where Mr. Halstead then created an explosive device
    using Tannerite taped to a saline bag on a propane tank, taped to a tree. He and Thomas then
    watched it explode. This occurred during their two week summer holiday together in July of
    2016.

    [110] Ms Roth believes that despite the OCL recommendations that Thomas not be
    exposed to firearms, the father continues to do so and that the father does not respect Thomas’s wishes in this regard. She cites the Tannerite explosive device incident that occurred during Thomas’s summer holiday with his father in July of 2016 as an example. This incident occurred after the 2016 recommendations of the both the OCL investigator and the children’s aid society that Thomas not be exposed to firearms.

    [267] When told during cross-examination that after the release of the OCL Report and
    recommendations, the father had exposed Thomas to an explosion on a shooting range near
    his property, Ms. Barlas testified that she would be very concerned about this given Thomas’
    clear views and preferences about being exposed to gun activity.

    [313] The father’s decision to arrange for an explosive device to be detonated in a
    shooting range during his summer holidays with Thomas only months after the OCL
    clinician recommended that Thomas not be exposed to guns or gun activity was ill advised to
    say the least and an example of very poor judgment. The father’ evidence that he did not
    recall whether he used a gun to cause the explosion was not credible and simply did not
    accord with common sense.

    As with the pattern of firearms abuse – if Luke was the offender in the earlier assault incident cited in R. v. Braithwaite, 2010; and if the incident on the conduct sheet is at all related to assault, how is it that those records would have been expunged?

    If the facts here are lined up:

    • It seems that Luke maybe have had an assault incident that is sealed due to the fact that he was underaged at the time.

    • He had an assault charge (for which he received probation) expunged as an adult. This was an incident that happened while he was an adult.

    • He has a second (non-munitions) entry on his army conduct sheet that likely the Superior Court did not know about at the time his records were expunged. It seems clear that, as with the munitions charges, he also fails to mention his previous assault-related incidents when he went before the court to request his records be expunged.

    Luke does brag about being able to ‘get out of trouble’ because of his job and uniform as a paramedic. Specifically, multiple traffic violations.

    When an officer stops a person for a traffic violation, is a record kept of the ‘search’ on the license plate, even when no charge or official warning is given to the driver?
    – If so, it’s likely there is a long list of traffic stops associate with Luke, but with no charges or fine levied.

  4. KatieeJuly 2, 2018 at 1:36 PM

    Andrei actually has borderline personality disorder mix with antisocial disorder. My sister has known his brother for years and his family has tried to get him into treatment for his illnesses.

1 2 3 4