The Unjust Justice System

Case 3

Case 3 Charges – Driving Under Suspension; Use Plates Not Authorized by the Ministry; Use Validation [sticker] Not Furnished by the Ministry; Fail to Surrender Permit for Motor Vehicle; and Fail to Surrender Insurance Card:

Actual (Trial) Hearing Date: November 22nd, 2013
JP: S. Fallon
Prosecutor: M. Dunlop

On the day of this event, I handed the “investigating” officer a Constructive Notice (it’s within the Charter Application below at Tab 4) and I gave no other documents such as: Driver’s License, proof of insurance, and vehicle ownership (which is actually a “permit” as that is what it states it is). Also, the day before this event, I was in court on another matter related to Case 1 and I believe it was no coincidence that this officer came out of nowhere (in a ghost car) and stopped me — for no reason whatsoever — one block away from the address listed on the Driver’s License that was in my possession (which is the property of the Province of Ontario).

You may find this case interesting as the results were positive. Although there were a number of appearances leading up to the trial, the trial date came and half a day was made available for me to present the 2 motions I had filed before a trial was to commence. [FYI: Motions the Defense brings forward are precedent – they must be heard and spoken to before the trial.]

First, I missed my first appearance due to a family crisis and a bench warrant was issued. I was picked up about 2 weeks later and spent a night in jail before appearing before a judge and then I was released on a recognizance thanks to the arresting officer’s good word (I explained to him the circumstances that occurred). [Note: At times in Case 1, one of the prosecutors (Bruno) made BS claims about this recognizance — stating it was for bad behavior in a courtroom.]

So 2 motions were filed: the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the HTA (which is pretty much the same as the previous one in Case 2) and a Section 7 Charter Application. (Notes: 1. This Charter Application focuses on the Natural Right to use the road, 2. A previous hearing date was postponed for reasons I can’t remember at the time of writing this and I then provided an amended version (the one above) to the court and Crown 8 months later. I added more case law/ authority to this version, and 3. In the Charter Application link I did not scan the case law at Tab 7 and 11 to reduce the size of the file for uploading and to reduce work, but you can view the Tab 7 case law at Big Point Club v. Lozon et al., 1943 and the Tab 11 case law at  R. v. Pawlowski, 2009 ABPC 362.

What Happened In Court?

I had half a day booked for my motions to be addressed and when I was called up I was surprised when the Crown brought the JP’s attention to my first motion (challenging jurisdiction) and then “granted it” – they granted a stay of the proceedings without me saying anything. This was the Crown granting it, not the JP! There are a number of reasons why they may have chosen this path and I can only speculate the reasoning behind what happened here as a lot of charges were dropped – but done so via the first motion. They simply could have just withdrew the charges by making up some bogus reason for withdrawal but they didn’t, they granted the stay on the motion. Note: This does not set any kind of precedence because it was the Crown that granted it and not a judge and it was granted with no debate and decision made on the record.


This is what I believe occurred and will be educating others about. First, they broke the law by NOT including the Constructive Notice and Declaration in the Disclosure documents presented to myself and the court. See R. vs Stinchombe where they must provide any kind of written statement by an accused. So, they broke the law here and I can assure you all prosecutors know of this law because it was a huge ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So 2 questions: 1) Why would they break such a Supreme Court of Canada ruling? 2) And why would they grant my motion that challenged jurisdiction?

The answer to both of these questions is huge… Their courts cannot deal with man and that’s actually where I positioned myself – in the only jurisdiction of law that can deal with flesh and blood men and women. The Constructive Notice and Declaration is a document that stated “clearly and unequivocally” my position at Law and for them to not go there was their only avenue in dealing with this – they did not want any of this going on the record!!

This is my belief as to their actions. I didn’t hand over any documentation that was created by a corporate government because it puts me under the creator of those documents. I would claim that that person is me, but it is actually an artificial person that they created. The creator has the power over that which it creates. (Maxim: The law regards the order of nature.) That is exactly how they have enslaved everyone – through a massive deception and the ignorance of the people in knowing their God-given unalienable rights and the law that has protected those rights for over a millennium.


Judging the Judge:

I actually had this judge for another hearing date before this trial — for this same matter. (On that previous hearing, it was learned that I was bringing forward Charter issues, the parties all agreed there should be a pretrial to discuss the length of the hearing and have the paper work taken care of properly.) No need to go into the details here, but from what I saw of this JP, she was conducting her duties in a fair and professional manner. Maybe this was another reason why the Crown granted the stay – there was a good JP conducting the hearings??? God forbid if people like them get enlightened by The Truth.

So, as for analyzing her ability to conduct her duties at the main hearing, obviously, because of the granting of the motion by the Crown, the information is N/A.