1st case – Driving with No Insurance (17th of May 2010):
Much to my dismay, what happened in this first case was disturbing as I have now lost so much respect for our so-called Civil Servants as their ability to perform their “duty” for society diligently was disgraceful to say the least.
I discuss what happened with the number of hearings that took place with this case and as with all my cases, I did a critique of the judge going by a document I found on the Internet after I googled “what makes a good judge?” So now I’m Judging the Judge on the following points:
- Integrity: honest, upright and committed to the rule of law
- Professional competence: keen intellect, extensive legal knowledge and strong writing abilities
- Judicial temperament: neutral, decisive, respectful and composed
Here are the details of how the first case unfolded from beginning to the relevant end. I will be leaving some of the irrelevant information out as to eliminate a lot of unnecessary writing on my part and reading on the readers part — staying focused on the important substance of how this case unfolded…
Actual (Trial) Hearing Date: July 19, 2012
JP: M. McLeod
Prosecutor: A. Bruno
The first thing that happened with this case — I asked for an adjournment: Eight months into this matter and I needed to delay my trial for a few months. To a certain degree, this was my doing, but I also did not have the Disclosure documents which the Crown is obligated to provide in a timely manner (they did not provide it on my first appearance which was June 23rd, 2010 (the Summons date) and on the second appearance/ this request for an adjournment). It is mandatory by law that the Crown provide the Disclosure documents (see R. v Stinchcombe/ a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision) — the accused needs to know the details of what claims are being presented to the court before a plea of guilty or not guilty is entered into the record. On December 20, 2010, I asked for an adjournment after filing a motion and there appeared to be some confusion as I believed there was a trial date set for January 12, 2011 while the Crown believed it was only to “be spoken to” (see page 2, line 6-28 of the Dec. 20 transcript). There was mention of me being responsible for the delay from that date (Dec. 20th) to the new date of July 20th 2011 (page 2, lines 3-5) — BUT, I still did not have Disclosure. In later hearings, transcripts and court documents it appeared as though the first trial date was on January 12, 2011. This is somewhat irrelevant in regards to some serious issues that occurred in this matter, but worth pointing out as it displays incompetence right from the beginning. I’m new and not practiced at this — what’s their excuse? (It only made things more confusing for me with my inexperience.) And I say somewhat because it is still key data for an 11(b) Charter violation that I filed (not tried within a reasonable time, which is 9-10 months according to case law).
Note: In my early appearances I was addressing myself (in more words or less) as a natural person representing an artificial person, which created some confusion and/or backlash at times. I dropped this process over time and just signed my name on documents as Shawn-Alan of the Cassista family. The objective was a simple one: I wanted to make it clear — on the record — that there were 2 persons before the court as defined in law. If they were applying Acts of law to a person, eventually I wanted the truth to come out — which person does the Act apply to? Which person does the Act have jurisdiction over? I have a rock solid argument for this that has been properly prepared and filed for my other cases.
Motions Before the Trial: So the motion before the court on December 20th, 2010 was brought forward to delay the trial date that was set for January 12, 2011. I was still in the learning process on how I was going to deal with this matter and preparing a defense with the motions I was going to bring forward before trial (the trial itself was irrelevant as it pertained to the facts, the motions will address the law). I was granted the request for the adjournment.
So two (2) appearances have now passed and NO Disclosure. Remember, I’m the one with little to no experience here on how the court process works — they do this everyday! [They can’t give you legal advice, but they have to make sure the system flows correctly.] At the adjournment hearing (December 20th) the Crown prosecutor provided a Part III Request for Disclosure form and told me to fill it out and fax it to their office.
Getting the Disclosure Documents: This is an important part of this case as you will see. Now that I had more time (the Trial Date was set for July 20th 2012), I faxed the Crown the request for Disclosure about 6 weeks later (February 9th, 2011). I heard nothing from the Crown for over 2 months and sent another fax to the Crown on the 19th of April. Almost another full month had past and I still did not get the Disclosure documents so I filed a motion on the 17th of May, which was heard on the 27th of May. On this date, the Crown still did not provide Disclosure and a new trial date was set for January 4th, 2012. I was NOT asking for a new trial date, although reading the transcript, it may have seemed that way as at one point I misunderstood what was being said — but it was made more clear by me later — see the transcript (page 3, line 30 to page 4, line 15). I was asking for Disclosure and made it clear that I made numerous requests for it over a 3 month period and we were now less than 2 months away from the July 20th trial date. This was NOT my fault. So it was collectively gathered that a new trial date was in order with no mention from anyone of an 11(b) Charter violation. Am I suppose to make that claim right there and then? No! I can bring in an 11(b) Charter Application forward any time after that. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that the Crown made errors here — they did not fulfill their obligation to provide Disclosure in a timely manner.
On May 30th, 3 days after this hearing, I get a call from the Crown’s office stating that Disclosure is ready for pick up and I picked it up 10 days later on June 9th, 2011. Do you see the efforts that I made to get the Disclosure documents and the lack of response from the Crown to provide it or even communicate to me outside the court appearances (there was no communication on their behalf until the 30th of May, 2011)? The Disclosure documents should have been provided “without request” according to R. v Stinchcombe. An 11(b) Charter violation took place here as at this point it was over 12 months since the date of the event that I got the Disclosure — never mind getting a trial! May 10th, 2010 to January 4th, 2012 (new trial date) equals 20 months minus the adjournment that I asked for which is 7 months equals 13 months of delay by the Crown. And my 7 months could still be argued as to whether it was my fault or not.
Motion for Further Disclosure:
On August 16th, 2011 I filed a motion for Further Disclosure that was heard on the 26th of August. This motion was a very basic request that should have been answered on the spot and on the record in my opinion. I requested that the Crown disclose the meaning of the word “person” as it applies to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act (CAIA) as the Act itself failed to define it in the definitions section. Every law dictionary I looked at pretty much defined person as: 1) Natural Person (a human being); and 2) Artificial Person (a corporation). With that motion, I was moving/ordering the court to order the Crown to provide the meaning of the word; that is how the court is supposed to work — as a neutral party being directed by “due process”. That day, the Crown Prosecutor leaned over in my direction (so this may not be on the record) and told me that, “I believe it applies to natural persons, but I’m not sure”. [I don’t have the transcript until appropriate funds are raised — this truth project will not be fully complete without financial support.] She then stated that what I needed to do was send a fax request for the meaning of the word and they would provide it to me [oh no, here we go again?].
[At this point I need to tell you of some things that I noticed in the courtroom and what occurred 24 hours later: In the courtroom there were few civilians present that day and the court only had a few matters to address so it went fairly quick. The other thing I noticed was that there had to be about a dozen uniformed police officers in attendance — just sitting in the courtroom seats. There were more cops in the courtroom that day then I had seen at any other time I have been in court. I got the impression that they were there to “observe” me because not a whole lot was going on in the court that morning from what I could tell (I could be wrong, but I just don’t think so). So they observed me asking a pretty fair and reasonable question. And the other thing: the next morning I appeared at the residence address listed on the Ontario Driver’s License that is in my possession. I was there for a short stay before myself and 3 family members left in my vehicle. Not one block from the residence and I was immediately pulled over by a cop that came out of nowhere in a ghost car (no emergency lights and very light markings). I was charged with 5 Highway Traffic Act related charges and my vehicle was impounded. See the details and end result of this case at Case 3 on my Summary of Cases page.]
On August 30th, 2011, four (4) days after this last hearing, I sent a fax to the Crown Attorney’s office and never heard back from them again. [Like I said, “here we go again”.] November 25th rolls around and I decided to personally hand deliver (a 55 minute return road trip) another Part III Request for Crown Disclosure document that included a copy of the previous fax and other details. Soon after, I receive a response that is a complete dodge of the question. It does not state anything close to the question asked as it should have stated clearly that, “the CAIA applies to natural persons (or corporations or both)” and provided the source of authority as to which that claim is made. This is pretty straight forward stuff! They did nothing of the sort and not only that, but they made a very debatable claim stating that, “Natural Person is a legal entity for the human being.” They also stated this without providing a source of authority for that claim, so it appears as though they are providing their own made up definition of the word “person” — an assumption as to how it applies to the Act?!? Big question marks here!! This is a complete joke! According to R. v Stinchcombe the Crown is completely obligated to provide full Disclosure and if the Defense is unclear of any information the Crown brings forward, it is their duty to make it clear. Let me quote Justice Sopinka, who was writing for a unanimous Court (in R. v Stinchcombe):
“It is difficult to justify the position which clings to the notion that the Crown has no legal duty to disclose all relevant information. The arguments against the existence of such a duty are groundless while those in favour, are, in my view, overwhelming.”
“The principle has been accepted that the search for truth is advanced rather than retarded by disclosure of all relevant material.”
I can assure you that what I was asking for is of relevance to one of my freedoms — more specifically, my unalienable right to use the roads. And one of the main purposes of me challenging all these charges was “to get to the truth” of whether that right still exists or not and if it doesn’t, when was it removed? If this right was removed, how can a right that is irremovable be removed? Truth is, it never was and never can be in a true free country.
So on we go to the trial…
The actual trial date that I will be talking about is the one that took place on July 19th, 2012. The one that was set for January 4th, 2012 was adjourned after I asked for it to be because I brought an 11(b) Charter Application before the court that did not include transcripts. The January 4th presiding justice of the peace (JP) allowed me to prepare the proper 11(b) and to bring that application before the court on the 19th of July.
Before that date, believing that this was the right process, I filed another motion to Grant a Stay of the Proceedings (dismiss the charge) based on an argument that showed the CAIA was not in harmony with the fundamental principles of law and long upheld rights based on self-evident truths of necessity. The motion was to be made orally on the 9th of July, 10 days before the trial. I was told by the presiding justice on that day to bring the motion forward before the court on the July 19th trial date.
[I later learned that this should have been brought before the court as a Section 7 Charter Application (Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.) I was never able to bring this motion forward but will link my other properly prepared Charter Application with the same charge here (Case 5). The case law within this document was not scanned, but can be found here at this link.]
So, leading up to the trial I made a number of calls to the court administration office in regards to the transcripts being ready for the 11(b) Charter Application. I ordered them January 12th, 2012 and they needed to be ready for the 19th of July. They were not ready (2 of 4 transcripts were not completed for the 19th) and when I went into the trial that day I was going to make a case for another adjournment and/or bring forward the motion for the stay (from the 9th of July). It wasn’t my fault that the transcripts weren’t ready!
Here is exactly what happened in the court that day… [You need to read the July 19th Trial Transcript to see the truth for yourself.] After discussing the transcripts/11(b) issue first, the matter was held down for a bit, then we went back at it. Looking over the transcript now again, I am picking up (more) Crown deceptions (or a screw up?) that I didn’t notice before: Such as, on page 5 line 23 of the July 19th Trial Transcript (above) where Mr. Anthony Bruno (the Crown Prosecutor) states that there was a “motion to stay the proceedings” on the 20th of December, 2010. That was the day I asked for adjournment as I was not going to be prepared for the original trial date and I didn’t have Disclosure yet. There was no request for a stay that day, but this was just part of the B.S. that followed…
He asks for a moment to look over the paperwork and then comes back (at page 6 line 15 of the transcript linked above) and states eight (8) lies from there through to page 8 about the Disclosure documents being available immediately and me avoiding picking them up. [For easier reading, I have outlined the content of these lies here in this pdf file.] Eight blatant lies — I didn’t even click into this right away and didn’t realize the magnitude of it until it was too late. And after all these blatant lies about the dates regarding Disclosure — where you can clearly see the JP asking for clarification at least twice — he slips in the truth with a lower voice while she wasn’t paying attention (she was going through the paperwork). See page 8, line 6-12 of the transcript where he slips in the truth with no response from the JP. Surely, if she would have heard the truth after all those lies, she would have spoken up — she would have questioned him big time! It was just dirty courtroom tactics and taking advantage of someone who has no experience in the courtroom.
He vilified me and then further vilified some more by making comments about the motion I filed for further disclosure to clarify the meaning of the word “person” as it applies to the CAIA. You have seen the document(s) I faxed above where I asked a pretty straight forward question and at page 8, line 14 of the July 19th transcript (linked above) he claimed that I made some ridiculous requests for ridiculous information. I think that the JP was just as confused as I was in the way he expressed what I supposedly stated…
According to prosecutor Anthony Bruno, I went “…on to state some numerous other motions about identification of a person under the CAIA…” WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT? …and numerous? And also lies again — the 10th or 11th now? — “…to which the Crown responded immediately.” As you can see at line 18 (page 8 still), the JP is totally perplexed by the picture this prosecutor has just painted of me. And he goes on at line 23-25 (page 8 still) and says, “…he requested artificial relations to a corporation, to the government and to non-legal entities.” You would have to be completely incompetent to get all that from a simple request to get the meaning of the word “person” as it applies to the CAIA. Well folks, read my fax again and you tell me, is this guy incompetent or is this dirty courtroom tactics?
If everything he said about me was true, and I was the JP, I would have little respect for the Defendant as well. BUT, as the JP, there is just one thing that needs to be considered at this point and that is: What’s his (my) side of the story right? Isn’t that the next logical step in due process? To Hear the other side? To execute Natural Justice? Well, that never happened and her (the JP) tone really took a turn here (right at page 9, line 7 and then on), which of course the transcript won’t fully reveal without audio. This was now a hostile environment that I was in.
I’ll just point out a few things the JP said right here for you to read (some of my favorites if you will):
She automatically accused me of “playing fast and loose”; responded to the motions I was bringing forward — “motion, shmotion, I’ve had enough of your motions” [funny, she hasn’t heard any of them yet]; again she says, “…your playing fast and loose with the process…”; and then said it a 3rd time and stated we are going to a trial “right now”; where I responded, “your going to deny me my right…” — she cuts me off and says, “…you don’t have any…” (rights).
I’m playing fast and loose? Really? I mean REALLY??? Because it sure looked to me like there was a dirty Crown prosecutor who was playing fast and loose here… not me. And… I don’t have any rights? She said this on the record!
From my point of view, if this is the norm in the courts, this is a total farce of a court system — it’s all right here for you to see — and it doesn’t get any better going to the Superior Court and then on to the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Supreme Court of Ontario), which you will see below. Aside from what I was originally trying to achieve, we went from an 11(b) Charter Application to now an 11(d) Charter Application (it wasn’t a fair hearing — plain and simple) and I was denied Natural Justice (the right to be heard — fully (11(d) as well)).
To recap the trial: I did not get a chance to answer to deceptive tactics made by the Crown prosecutor. …The JP bought into lies about the disclosure documents being picked up as well as the nonsense he spewed out about clarifying the meaning of the word “person” as it applies to the CAIA, which then created a hostile environment. The JP denied me the right to a fair hearing plain and simple and I was denied the right to bring motions forward — once again, denied Natural Justice. [I will point out that I believe this whole clarification of the word “person” thing was a complete dodge and that, if seriously addressed, it would turn the entire legal system upside down.]
Judging the Judge:
The JP’s name: Justice M. McLeod
- Her integrity: Was she honest? I can’t honestly say, I don’t know her personally and what happened in court didn’t give me enough to provide an answer either way. Was she upright and committed to the rule of law? Not a chance. She struck me as community worker of some sort — a principal of a school comes to mind — just going with the flow of a conversation that she was leading. This was not a courtroom scenario from my point of view — I was sitting in front of someone who knew nothing of the court process and the duty of a judge to perform diligently.
- Her professional competence: Did she have a keen intellect? Don’t make me laugh (No!). Did she have extensive legal knowledge? She didn’t bring anything to the table here that’s for sure. Strong writing abilities? N/A.
- Her judicial temperament: Was she taking a neutral position? Not at all, she listened to a pile of B.S. from Prosecutor Anthony Bruno and didn’t give me the opportunity to respond to his allegations. Was she decisive? Yes, decisively incompetent in fulfilling her duty (if she even knew what that was). Was she respectful and composed? She acted like a total b***h and started talking down to me as soon as Bruno filled her head with lies — so absolutely not!
On to the first appeal process…
The 1st Appeal to the Superior Court of Justice:
Actual (1st Appeal) Hearing Date: May 10, 2013
Judge: B. W. Duncan
Prosecutor: P. John
I appealed this matter to the Brampton Superior Court right away and appealed it on the grounds of an 11(b) Charter violation. After doing some research and getting some consultation, there were a number of grounds for the appeal in regards to the law: an 11(d) Charter violation (in short, not getting a fair hearing), I was denied Natural Justice, the proceedings conflicted with some fundamental principles of law, and procedural fairness as per Baker v. Canada.
The first thing that took place was that I had to appear before the the court to waive a $5,000+ fine and enter into a recognizance with the court. So I had to enter into the recognizance (because you are required to pay the fine before you can appeal) and then gave grounds for the appeal.
So, at this first hearing, I had to fight tooth and nail (arguing the grounds for the appeal) after the Crown prosecutor discriminated me (see page 5, line 22 to page 8 of the first appeal hearing transcript) by associating me with a political movement. And regardless of whether I am or not, doesn’t change the fact that I have the right to be heard. But let’s be clear here, I am not part of a movement and was trying to bring sound (in law) arguments before the court. I dug my heals in (at page 8, line 19) and made a case for the appeal hearing and won, but I have to tell you the tone from this judge (after the discriminating comment was made) was brutal — he was completely unprofessional to say the least. At page 9, line 29 he went as far as telling me to “shut up”. I found out later via connections I made within the Brampton court house that he is bias (in other words: an unfair/ non-neutral judge) when it comes to dealing with anyone coming off sounding like a free-man-on-the-land (the political movement) litigant.
So, the Appeal hearing was set for May 10th, 2013. Grounds for this appeal were arguments I made based on the fact that I did not get a fair hearing. So I put together and filed a FACTUM AND AUTHORITIES (FAA) book that lays out the law and shows how an 11(d) Charter violations took place on 3 counts. The 3 counts included: 1) the fact that I was not allowed to bring the 11(b) Charter Application forward and be heard fully on this issue, 2) I was not allowed to answer to the false allegations made by the Crown prosecutor regarding a number of dates regarding pickup of the Disclosure documents, and 3) I was not allowed to bring forward a previously filed pre-trial motion. Motions brought before a trial are precedent — they must be heard.
What happened at the appeal was a great injustice once again as the presiding judge (Duncan) from the first appeal hearing above, conducted the appeal. I had a label put on me at the first appeal hearing and I was pretty sure that this judge was going to be bias against me. No matter what I would have said, it was clear to me that I had lost the hearing before it even began. The only issues that this judge should have been focused on was: 1) did I get a fair hearing on any one of the 3 counts, and 2) even though it was no longer the focal point of the appeal, what amount of time was the Crown responsible for in regard to the delays for getting the Disclosure document — was there a valid 11(b) argument?
The first thing I tried to do was record the hearing as it’s my right and he was nasty with me within seconds. Even though I tried to bring the Courts of Justice Act, sec. 136 (2) to his attention, where it states, “nothing prohibits…a party acting in person from unobtrusively making an audio recording at a court hearing.” In other words, he ignored the law himself (obstructing justice?) by not even addressing it and claimed it was at the courts discretion without providing the source of authority for that claim. Right from the start, this is unacceptable. (See all of page 1 of the transcript — although, again, the transcript does not reflect the magnitude of his unprofessional-ism without audio). I have also talked to a few lawyers about this and they have confirmed that the right to record your own hearing is the law. Why is this not universally accepted by ALL judges??? Why is there such an indifference about such a basic law — a right??? This alone is a perfect example of how screwed up our courts are!!
Page 2 of the transcript now gets confusing as the judge and I appeared to be talking about 2 different things. Justice Duncan was talking about the grounds of the appeal being an 11(b) — as if he didn’t even read my FAA book (linked above) — while I was talking about an 11(d) (the transcript has errors in it — it states I said 11(b)). [His REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (RFJ) also reflect that he did not read my FAA.] At one point I got confused because it did not seem like we were addressing the grounds of the appeal that I brought forward and I pointed it out to him (at page 3, line 18 to page 4, line 3) by asking him about the FAA and whether he read it or not. He dodged the question. The question here is did I get a fair hearing or not at the trial? This is what he should have been focusing on, but as you can see by reading the whole transcript, he was moving away from this and making arguments for the Crown – look at how much Justice Duncan spoke compared to the Crown (this is not due process). It was just a complete joke of a proceeding if you ask me and there is no way our judges/courts should be conducting its duties in this manner no matter who the accused/ appellant is. Not to mention he was very intimidating which made it even more difficult for me to address this matter.
Duncan’s Ridiculous Claims:
Justice Duncan stated, on the record, that this is a simple matter, you either had insurance or you didn’t (page 2, line 31). As if to say, you have no right to challenge that Act in a court of law.
Then he makes some more incredible claims — on the record — regarding Disclosure. On page 5, lines 5-8, Justice Duncan basically states that I don’t need to have Disclosure. And pushes this personal belief even further at line 23 of his RFJ (linked above). This is absolutely ridiculous! This is (or should be) standard knowledge that anyone accused of anything must have Disclosure before entering a plea — there is no questioning or opposing this fact in the legal process. So, not only does this judge make this comment on the record, he also states it again in his RFJ even after I provided the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case law R. v Stinchcombe in my FAA — a decision that focuses on matters regarding Disclosure. Although the case refers to “indictable” offenses, it has to be considered universal in every matter brought before a court — it’s the right of the accused to have disclosure of all relevant material brought before a court before he/she enters a plea. There are no exceptions here, that is the law! I have confirmed this with some lawyers as well. It appears, from Justice Duncan’s perspective, that cutting corners is part of the process and he is above the Supreme Court of Canada. If you ask me, Canadians should be deeply concerned when judges like this run our courtrooms in this manner.
How Duncan Viewed The Crown’s Lies:
Now, let’s talk about all those lies the Crown stated on the record and how it created a hostile environment and therefore led to a completely unfair hearing denying me Natural Justice. He simply dismissed the whole thing pointing out the the Crown prosecutor corrected himself “seconds later” (see line 20 of his RFJ) and ignores the fact that a hostile environment was established from all these lies. He also went as far as turning the tables here and labeling me as the lier.
To close on the topic of the appeal hearing, he made ridiculous comments and did all the arguing for the Crown (whom of which said very little) while having an ugly tone towards me. It was a completely bias hearing, whereas it should have been conducted in a manner where he just sat there and listened to both parties neutrally (I have my say; then the Crown argues it; then I close with my response to the Crown’s argument) focusing on: the grounds of the appeal set forth in my FAA; the Crowns (badly written) FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT that did not address the issues stated in my FAA; and my response (Closing Arguments) to their/that FACTUM. In the end, did an 11(d) Charter violation take place on July 19th, 2012 and/or were there grounds for an 11(b) Application as well? If you look closely, so much of my arguments (pertaining to the facts of what occurred during these hearings and the law that I provided) that were made in my FAA and my response to the Crown’s FACTUM have been ignored by the Judge and the Crown.
Justice Duncan’s REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
I questioned Justice Duncan at the hearing, asking him if he read my FAA (again, page 3, line 18 of the transcript). Judging from his RFJ, it appears he did not or he simply ignored the strength of my arguments because there is no mention of the key elements I brought forward. He was on another planet by the looks of things or… was he simply dodging my legitimate arguments in order to maintain a conviction against an individual standing up against the tyrannical status quo of servitude?!?
Here are the key points that I make in regard to his RFJ:
- The argument from my standpoint was a matter of law, he made numerous remarks regarding the facts of the event (as did the Crown) which were irrelevant. Address the matter from the perspective of the law!
- Was I denied the right to make an 11(b) argument? I wasn’t there to show the merit for the 11(b); that was supposed to be done at the trial (from my understanding) — this was now an 11(d) issue. So arguing the facts regarding Disclosure, which led to the 11(b) were never fully brought before the court at the appeal, yet he sways towards the Crown’s argument that it was my fault. In my FAA, yes, I did address those Disclosure issues that occurred and even provided the law (Stinchcombe) in support of that argument — and he ignored it! He ignored the law! The Supreme Court of Canada’s R. v Stinchcombe decision has no weight in his court? You either say this or don’t say anything and dodge the whole question of law (which favored my side). So what the hell is going on here? Oh right, he said I didn’t need Disclosure!!
- Did the court err in regards to not allowing me to respond to the Crown’s lies about Disclosure pick up? It is quite clear when you read the July 19th transcript that there were blatant lies told by the Crown — a ton of them! I was accused of playing fast and loose and all that B.S. from the JP, but it was the Crown that was guilty of playing fast and loose here — some pretty dirty tactics if you ask me. It is beyond me how any individual cannot see what transpired here when it is written in plain english. You have one individual asking a number of questions — the same question — and getting the same answer 4 out of 5 times. When the answer suddenly becomes a totally different one on a fifth submission, you would have to think that a response from that individual asking the questions is forthcoming, would you not? That’s like asking how old are you five times in a row and getting the answer 30 four times and then getting the answer 35 on the fifth asking. Question marks would have to be popping into your head and you would need to clarify this would you not? What is the real answer? What is the truth here?
That didn’t happen and with this, and the idiotic comment Anthony Bruno made (about further disclosure), he undoubtedly caused a hostile environment in the courtroom. How did Justice Duncan make the call on this one? He comments how the prosecutor made some “mis-statements” but they were “corrected seconds later by the prosecutor himself”, completely ignoring the fact that she did not respond to these “mis-statements” and the hostile environment that follows in the transcript. Can you not see this for what it is?
- It is clear that this judge has discriminated me as a Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) (a.k.a. free-man-on-the-land) litigant (line number 8 of his RFJ) and that is the reasoning for the appeal dismissal. What are the grounds for coming to the conclusion that I am an OPCA litigant?:
- I have a “fondness for Latin phrases”. Does he even know what these are? It should be clear in law what the Maxims of Common Law are — they are long settled indisputable truths in law. The Charter and the Canadian Bill Of Rights refer to them as our foundation for all our laws and also attached the word supremacy to it — principles that recognize the supreme rule of law. I use them to strengthen my arguments — making them more indisputable and easier to understand. You would think that this would help speed up the process. He appears to be fond of the Meads v Meads case in which another incompetent (or corrupt) judge declares them “irrelevant”. In my opinion, this is treasonous as new case law is corrupting the justice system and leading us down a very dangerous path.
- I have a fondness for citing legal [law?] dictionaries. What is the matter with that? I’m pretty sure that helps bring clarity and understanding to my arguments as well. Isn’t that what we all want in helping things move along a little smoother and faster? And, what is the purpose of the law dictionary if not for that purpose? It appears to me that, from Justice Duncan’s perspective, they serve no purpose at all and we should just do away with them altogether?!?
- I practice the “bizarre” “dual/split person routine” — right out of Meads v Meads (he is talking about how I signed my name on some court documents). It’s a fact of law: we have a legal name and we have a family name, period! The legal name ties you to the financial world and the Statutory Acts of law that you “consent” to. The big questions here are, is this servitude? Is there another way to exist? The family name is of Common Law which is bound by the principles I have spoken of — it is the supreme law… It kicks statutory ass!! This is our heritage and it cannot be denied to anyone who claims it. You cannot be forced to give that up. You cannot be forced to acquire a strawman. All that being said, who cares how I sign my name or ask in preference how I would like to be addressed? It doesn’t change the fact that you can’t deny me my right to a fair hearing and my unalienable (natural) rights for these ridiculous reasons. But maybe you can if you’re sitting in a kangaroo court — a court not of the law (one run by tyrants???).
- On the 3rd count of not being heard, did the court err in regards to me being denied my right to bringing a motion forward that shows that the CAIA is not in harmony with the fundamental principles of law? Simply put, I don’t know how else you can spell it out with all that he said in his RFJ other than to say that, he doesn’t care that I’m making a case for my liberties and that I make that case based on principles and case law. It appears, from his perspective, that this is the way we do things around here: in a democratic process where the ignorant (of the law) population can vote in corrupt politicians that pass laws that tear apart the fabric of our freedoms — we don’t care about your right to make valid arguments based on principles; those principles that this nation’s foundation rests upon.
In his eyes I am one of those OPCA litigants and I don’t deserve the time of day!
- At page 11, line 12-21 of the hearing transcript, after I brought to his attention some principles regarding consent and law, Justice Duncan stated that (in short), “Laws are imposed upon people by a democratic process. It’s not a matter of consent. It’s a social contract that we enter into by being a member of society and you are governed by what our legislators tell us and decide what should be law, and that’s the way it goes.”
- My response to such a dangerous line of thinking is this: When our society is not educated about the law and their natural God-given rights, there will be no desire by the masses in that society to stand up and defend them. And, while corruption is peaking in our society and around the world like never before, that paralyzing reality will not change. That means atrocities that occurred in the past, such as those during WWII, will eventually repeat themselves.
Also, a false statement made by Justice Duncan is that we live in a democracy. We don’t, we live in a republic — a society ruled by law. That law is the Charter and the Bill of Rights (in Canada) which both recognize the Common Law as our foundation. [UPDATE: this is false as we have a de facto government running the show since 1931 – see Long Intro Page] Thanks to these protections, statutory laws can and have been overturned — not nearly as many as there should be though thanks to the ignorance and apathy of Canadians.
Furthermore, even if people do believe we live in a democracy, how often do we see the government do things that the majority never wanted done in the first place? Do the majority of people want more taxes? Do they want more tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations? Do they favor the seizure of private information without warrant? Do they want more surveillance? Do they want privately owned roads (such as the 407 toll hwy in Ontario for example)? Do you think the people of Toronto would have wanted the G20 to take place right in the heart of the city, virtually killing some business; and would the country approve of the force the police used that led to inhumane behavior from our so-called public servants and led to the largest mass arrest in Canadian history — blatantly infringing on their rights?
These are just some examples and I can assure you that the majority of people I talk to do not like any of this. The government of Canada has now passed Bill C-51 with little public consultation or consideration of its impact (the norm these days) and this bill will surely infringe on the rights of those ignorant people who have no clue what is at stake — all because of a few individuals that killed some Canadians in a time of war. Horrifying things happen every day on this planet — Canada is not immune. Giving too much power to an already corrupt government and public servants is not the answer. If the population does want to surrender their freedoms, they have no clue as to what they are giving up in exchange for false security. Yes, there are dangers in the world that will never go away, but the biggest danger is giving absolute power to governments, because eventually, that power will rule us absolutely (like the famous quote goes). That is our biggest threat and the biggest reason we should all stand on guard for the law that is our foundation and not the laws passed by crooked corporate politicians. So, with all due respect to the ignorant people who know nothing of the law, I refuse to consent to the surrender of my unalienable rights. And if I’m forced to surrender them in any manner, that means one thing and one thing only: we do not live in a free country, we live in a tyranny.
“Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint. If a person is compelled by the state or the will of another to a course of action or inaction which he would not otherwise have chosen, he is not acting of his own volition and he cannot be said to be truly free.”
~ Source: R. v Big M Drug Mart (1985) Supreme Court of Alberta
- As you can see from his RFJ, this judge already made his mind up that I am part of a movement/group and dismissed the appeal. Furthermore, in his written decision, he conveniently leaves out every bit of law that I cited and overlooks the obvious facts of how the trial proceeded and my grounds for the appeal. In the end, it was clear that his dismissal of the appeal was based on my alleged association with this group because of a couple of similarities.
Finally, Justice Duncan’s comments about tripling the fines for people like me is a discriminating remark towards people who make the effort to stand up for freedom in this country — using the courts for what they are there for. What a shameful endorsement by someone who is in such an important position in society. Anyone that comes into the courtroom independently in a stand for freedom could possibly be subject to heavy fines (and possibly jail time) because of this decision and his remarks. If this isn’t treasonous, I don’t know what is.
Judging the Judge:
The Judge’s name: Justice B. W. Duncan
- His Integrity: Was he honest? Again, I can’t say anything for sure other than this man who has a very important part to play in society is either incompetent or corrupt in my opinion. Was he upright and committed to the rule of law? Not at all. He was all over the place in both the hearings as he pushed hard the moment he saw me as an OPCA litigant and ignored well established law (both case law and principles) — or he just ignored/didn’t read my FAA book at all.
- His professional competence: Did he have a keen intellect? I’m not going to answer this one — harsh words will fill this line. Did he have extensive legal knowledge? I don’t know, but I provided plenty of it to no avail. Did he have strong writing abilities? His writing ability appear to be good, but the problem is that he can’t read very well as he couldn’t determine (from all the information available) the fact that a hostile environment took place and what caused it. He also failed to define exactly what my points for argument were in my FAA book and pin pointed issues that were off topic in his RFJ — in other words he never addressed the grounds for my appeal.
- His judicial temperament: Was he taking a neutral position? Not at all, at the main appeal hearing he did all the talking for the Crown. Also, you can’t be neutral when you are bias. Was he decisive? Only with his own agenda! Was he respectful and composed? Again, not at all. He told me to shut up and was talking down to me at the first hearing and at the main hearing he was very aggressive and intimidating. The transcript does not do justice in providing the proof of his disrespectful behavior and composure and it is beyond me how these servants get away with this behavior and unprofessional-ism without getting removed permanently from public office.
The 2nd appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Supreme Court of Ontario):
Actual Hearing Date: September 18, 2013
Judge: J. A. Cronk
This was actually the first time that I witnessed due process in this case. The basic court process allows for one party (making a claim) to get the opportunity to speak fully and make his case without interruption — with the exception of the judge asking questions to clarify what is being said. Then the opposition answers to the claims made without interruption. Then the claimant makes their uninterrupted closing statements/ responding to what the opposition said. As the one filing the appeal, I was the Claimant going first (this works the same for filing the motions – you become the aggressor and speak first) and I was actually allowed to say everything I pretty much needed to say. The Crown spoke and then I closed… the process went the way it was supposed to in a fair hearing!
The end result left me with my head spinning as this was never a matter of challenging the validity of the Act of law in question or Charter Rights violations by the execution of the Act, it was about the law regarding how the legal process was executed during the trial and the appeal as the people’s best interests are at stake here. In short, once again, all material information and law I provided in (now, for this appeal) my MOTION RECORD that was filed with the court was left out of the appeal judge’s decision. She simply said there was “no merit” and left every argument I made out of the equation – everything! The only good thing she said in regards to my case, which in itself contradicts the 1st appeal judge’s decision, was that associating me with OPCA litigants was “inappropriate”. This is truly amazing since Duncan’s reasoning behind the 1st appeal decision was overwhelmingly based on me being an OPCA litigant.
The decision was not made right there and then, Justice Cronk needed to read a submitted transcript before she made her final decision. She said she would mail it to me, but I didn’t hear anything for about 2 months and inquired about it — and received a copy of her hand written endorsement via email.
In her endorsement document, she stated the following: That I alleged unfairness of the trial and appeal hearing — that I “complained”: that the “Crown made late disclosure to him”; that I was denied the right to bring a Charter 11(b) forward; that I was denied the right to bring a motion challenging the CAIA; that the appeal judge was bias in my case and failed to consider the material that I provided (my FAA book) — denying me a fair hearing.
From her point of view I failed in passing the test for the appeal or the grounds for the appeal, which were namely that the appeal should have been granted on (from this 2nd appeal), 1) a question of law alone, and 2) that it is essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice that the appeal be granted. Here is her response to each of these claims (or complaints) and my responses to this judge’s claims:
- She stated the appeal judge’s reasons are thorough and detailed and based on the merits of the issues addressed while it looks pretty clear to me that I was aggressively viewed as a OPCA litigant almost from beginning to end.
- She stated she saw no error or reasoning in regards to the 11(b) matter. The main focus of that 11(b) was the fact that the Crown did not provide the disclosure within a reasonable time (9-10 months according to case law). The Crown provided it 13 months after which led to delays. She states, “he received it more than one year before his trial”. This is a stunning comment! The trial took place 23 months later — NOT within a reasonable time — this ALONE is total grounds for the appeal. The manner in which she states this comes off sounding as if she has never heard of an 11(b) Charter violation in her life! I’m still baffled how a Supreme Court judge messed this up. If she first contemplated that there could have been an 11(b) issue here, she should of — in all fairness to me — asked to have a thorough analysis of the delays to figure out who was at fault, don’t you think?
- She stated that my arguments regarding the CAIA violating my rights and liberties “has no prospect for success”. I was never allowed to bring those arguments forward with a FULL rebuttal of my points so she is making an assumption here. She is basically saying, no matter what law or sound principle arguments I bring forward, we won’t listen to it and you aren’t going to win. How fair is that? Is this acting in the best interests of the public??? We need to see a valid argument here in response to what I have brought forward — you cannot keep me (and the public) in the dark!!
- She states that I/he “simply disagrees that he is subject to the requirement of the CAIA”. Um… no, the law clearly states otherwise as I have pointed out in this Section 7 Charter Application, an argument that should have been properly brought before the court. The law is doing the talking here, not me, I’m just standing by it and protecting my liberties.
- Finally, where is the rebuttal to all the documentation I provided in my MOTION RECORD (linked above)? You go into the court house and you talk to the clerks who explain to you how you need to prepare this huge document (with all the supporting information that comes with it) to submit to the courts for the judge to read. Make it as professional as you can so that it is easy to read and understand as to speed up the process. I spent countless hours putting this MOTION RECORD together and same goes with the FACTUM AND AUTHORITIES book for the first appeal and it was all done for nothing! What a joke of a system!!!
Judging the Judge:
The Judge’s name: Justice Cronk
- Her integrity: Was she honest? I can’t really say anything in that regard other than she gave me no reason to think otherwise. Was she upright and committed to the rule of law? I would say so as far as following procedure, but there was yet another dispute about recording the hearing.
- Her professional competence: Did she have keen intellect? It appeared so in the courtroom, but looking at the end result scares the shit out me! Did she have extensive legal knowledge? There is a question mark regarding me recording the hearing and as far as the case goes, she wasn’t bringing much of it up during the hearing, nor in her endorsement and she ignored the case law, principles and the fact that Natural Justice was denied to me so who knows what is going on there? Did she have strong writing abilities? Her hand written endorsement was short and to the point basically saying there was no merit for the appeal so there isn’t much to go on here in answering that question.
- Her judicial temperament: As for being neutral, decisive, respectful and composed? I would have to give full marks for the way she conducted herself in the courtroom.
- I did’t always have the court documents properly before the court in the early going, BUT the court must be forgiving in a fair manner — that’s the duty of the court — the servants do know their duty and must act diligently with the UTMOST sense of importance and urgency as R. v Stinchcombe dictates. How the court should have proceeded here is recognize the fact that I am inexperienced — and every man has the natural right by law to defend himself and if it takes a little longer, the system has to suck it up in the name of justice and doing the honorable duty of protecting and preserving our rights at law, period. If people want to accuse me of wasting the courts time and resources, think twice: our legal system is such a racket right now with so many bogus laws being passed, but the real kicker is how these people within the court system work — look at Case 7 where I was charged with a criminal offense and then you tell me who is wasting the courts time and resources.
- All the way to a Supreme Court and it still was not recognized that I have the right at law to be fully heard. Proper court documents like the Section 7 Charter Application (above) were not allowed to be brought before the court for some serious discussion. What I needed to see is the Opposition’s opposing arguments based on the law — let’s see something tangible. What is the intellectual discussion that rebuts my argument?
This is how we get to the truth and keep the integrity of an honorable justice system intact. This is where we see the integrity of honorable judges! Personally, from my experience, I won’t refer to a judge as “Your Honor” until he/she has proven to be honorable by performing their duties diligently and making the right decision that is just. I don’t know these people personally and I’m sure not going to assume they are honorable unless I have heard about them or witnessed it personally. The judges who stood unanimously in the R. v Stinchcombe decision got it right and deserve the badge of honor. What really gets me here is that every prosecutor and judge in this country should have this decision engraved in their heads for the sake of argument and wasting resources. Same goes for recording your own hearing!
Going into the courtroom shouldn’t have been such a huge task. The legal process didn’t flow well from the beginning and it only became more difficult as we went along. I had valid arguments and those arguments, by law, must be heard. When things got out of hand at the beginning, they only seemed to escalate. Whose fault is that? The transcript of the trial speaks volumes with how the court conducted its duties and the first appeal flowed the same way. In the end, explaining it to a judge that actually listened, and who still decides in favor of poorly conducted hearings speaks volumes to the justice system in this part of the world — Brutal!
This may sum up ALL of the above with a reality check: From a Crown newsletter (page 9-10) that came my way, the judge in R. v. Felts  O.J. No. 6204 (C.J.):
“I begin by indicating that I fully appreciate that those individuals who are appointed to sit as justices of the peace are frequently citizens who have a wealth of experience in the community, in the business world, in the education field, in all aspects of employment who often come to this position later in life. They rarely have any training in legal matters and it is exceptionally rare that an individual would be appointed with some working knowledge of the laws of evidence and criminal process. They are trained on a very steep learning curve. That training falls far less than that received by even a first-year law student. They are asked to draw upon their experience, common sense and general knowledge and their somewhat limited training to preside over matters in the Provincial Offences Court. They acquire a great deal of experience on the job.”
“There is a lack of analysis, there is a lack of conclusions, there is a lack of weighing and assessing of evidence. If I’m asked to decide or to review how the Justice of the Peace made this decision, what was important and what was not important, the reasons are absolutely lacking and those alone would indicate that the reasons are insufficient, constituting a palpable and overriding error.”
“The court refers to R. v. Shephard “It would be wrong to expect them (Judges and Justices of the Peace) to explain in detail the process they followed to reach a verdict. They need only give reasons that the parties can understand and that permit appellate review.””
From my perspective and in my opinion, I see the people as sheep being herded into the courts for the purpose of extorting monies/property from us and anyone that stands in retaliation of that status quo — until the masses wakes up — is a David vs Goliath.
Here are copies of the complaints I filed on Crown prosecutor Bruno and JP McLeod — which, of course, fell on deaf ears — meaning, we have no accountability system in place! I can’t show you any documentation other than the initial complaints for legal reasons that may bring lawsuits my way. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if that happen anyway!
Prosecutor A. Bruno complaint
Justice of the Peace M. McLeod complaint