The Unjust Justice System

Case 2

Case 2 Charges – Driving with Hand Held Device:

Actual (Trial) Hearing Date: July 31, 2013
JP: J. Fletcher
Prosecutor: V. Pankou

One Motion Filed: Motion to grant a stay of proceedings challenging the jurisdiction of the HTA. The motion challenging jurisdiction, which challenges the Crowns “assumption” that the HTA has jurisdiction over me — and via a lawful process, “rebuts” that assumption. This motion has numerous points within it that I bring forward that are heavily supported by Maxims (principles) of Common Law. (Note: The Legislative Act, 2006 was mentioned a number of times in this court document. This is an error, it should be Legislation Act, 2006.)

This was a basic $100 fine that deserved a challenge like all other Highway Traffic Act (HTA) laws for the reasons brought forward in my motion arguments. Also, from my point of view, I am more than capable of talking while driving and having a phone in my hand doesn’t affect my ability to operate my vehicle. It may be a concern for others, but because others are incapable of performing such a basic task, does that justify a law that denies me a simple freedom from financial penalty? I think not! (Some may argue the safety point of view, but there is a lot to discuss about that. The way I see it: I’m not willing to sacrifice any of my freedoms in the name of safety. That being said, there wasn’t a safety concern here.) But that isn’t the real dilemma, it’s that fact that the justice system, by way of the HTA, now has a right to extort money from me against my will. What if I say no? What are they going to do to me if I fight to the bitter end in a country that is free and the law definition of freedom is “opposite of slave”? Keep in mind that there is no damaged party involved and I have an impeccable 40 year accident free record while operating my vehicles on the roadways.

What Happened In Court?

The trial date was set for April 17, 2013. Unfortunately when that date drew near, something had come up where I was not going to be able to attend on that date so I had a friend appear for me and ask for an adjournment. The new date was then set for June 10, 2013. I was in attendance on that date and it was realized that the motion I was to bring forward had to be faxed to the Attorney General’s office for Ontario and Canada 15 days prior to the court date. I erred here, and had to ask for another date which the court allowed. The new date was set for July 31, 2013 and I did follow through with the faxing of the documents and was ready to bring forward the motion on this new date.

In court, on the 31st of July 2013, the Crown addressed a “technicality” – the faxed documents had a fax confirmation date of “September 21, 2011”. How this happened: I unplugged my All In One fax machine to bring to a friend’s house and sent the fax from there because I didn’t have a regular phone line at the time. The date on the fax machine changed and I didn’t notice this change. I did ask for an adjournment, but this would have been the fourth time in doing so and was denied by the presiding justice of the peace.

Later, I realized that I could have made an argument to hear this motion and strengthened the argument by using the R. v Vellone case (that I happen to have with me) in which a judge stated that, “legal technicalities should not be used as a sword by a prosecutor to defeat a legitimate argument raised by unrepresented individuals in a trial process that is not to be overly technical or complex” – but unfortunately I was not quick enough on the thinking. The Crown could have also admitted that they did receive the fax 2 weeks prior — because those are the facts — why not do the honorable thing? Again, what does this tell you about the system and most specifically the people (who are supposed to be acting in our best interests) within it?

So on with the trial proceedings where I was asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Even though I was only prepared to make the case for my motion, I did not bother preparing for the actual trial process because there was no point, but I pleaded “not guilty” anyway just to experience how the process would unfold and watch how the civil servants involved conducted their duty.

There is not much to report on here and couldn’t be bothered with any transcript purchasing. I did get convicted on this charge though. I will point out that the officer did his job adequately, but the prosecutor …well, I’ll just say wasn’t a very pleasant soul. As for the Justice of the Peace…

Judging the Judge:

I must say, the JP in this case was very thorough compared to Case 1 and I wish I had not erred in bringing this case to the forefront. Here is my analysis on this judges performance…

  • Her Integrity: she appeared to be very honest and upright. I have to say she went above and beyond as far as following the rule of law as she was able to interact very well in the courtroom with all parties while she had case law in her hands doing the talking for her.
  • Her professional competence: she had keen intellect as she appeared to be on the ball with everything that was being said. With her using the case law before her as her guide, I was led to believe that she had extensive legal knowledge to some degree… probably more focused along the lines of traffic related issues and the court process. As for her writing abilities: they are N/A.
  • Her judicial temperament: was excellent from what I saw… high scores on being neutral, decisive, respectful and composed. I may have really missed an opportunity here to have a fair hearing with an educational conclusion.