The Unjust Justice System

Summary of Cases

First, the decision to challenge the right to use the roads unmolested seemed to be a realistic battle [Case 7 is a criminal charge] for a number of reasons, but mostly because it is a very basic natural right that shouldn’t be hard for the average individual to comprehend in legal terms – if one puts his/her mind to it long enough. The traffic courts represent the very lowest levels of the justice system and even at this level, the supreme law must be recognized as every natural right should be protected in every courtroom. What other purpose do these courtrooms serve? [That’s actually a loaded question! But…] If you are one who needs that question answered… In the simplest of answers, there is no other purpose. Until the public recognizes this fact and then identifies with all the inconsistencies within the justice system (namely the key individuals who work within it whose duties are to perform diligently and honorably) and does something about it, then the foundation of the justice system is absent at its core and therefore is non-existent. If a countries justice system doesn’t honor the supreme law that serves as its foundation, then that countries freedoms are in serious jeopardy.

Let me say that there is a supreme law and it stands on its own when you see it and then understand it. The pen IS mightier than the sword as it was the sword that brought that mighty pen to its supremacy in the first place. In an age where technology and information are radically revolutionizing the way we live, it is imperative that we learn what it is we are about to lose before it is potentially gone forever.

New Case Law Poisoning the Justice System

The Justice System – Exposed: Based on my personal experiences and in my opinion, the lowest level of our courts are run by either incompetent or corrupt people. This is a great injustice whichever the case may be. I have even witnessed this firsthand moving up the latter to the higher courts. You owe it to yourself (and family and friends) to take the time to see just how unjust it has become. From what I have witnessed, anyone who acts in retaliation against the emerging status quo of continuous oppressive governance has a hard line to walk along. I must add that, after seeing what I have seen at times in the courtroom, I would feel much more comfortable going in knowing that I could expect a fair hearing beforehand. But that just hasn’t been the case as you just don’t know what to expect when there are so many different “characters” (?) working within our justice system. I’m not saying they’re all indifferent (and not fulfilling their duty), but too many of them are and it leads to a feeling within (before you go through the courtroom doors); the feeling of having a serious lack of faith in the justice system itself. In the end, some really bad case law is being created and poisoning our justice system,

At the end of each case I have provided my own perspective on how the judges conducted their duties — Judging the Judge. After a google seach of, “what makes a good judge”, this is what I found and what I have analyzed:

  • 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

 

Case 1 Charges – Speeding; Driving Without Insurance (this is a lengthy case that reveals a lot of problems with the system)
Case 2 Charges – Driving with Hand Held Device (this is a short read)
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 (this is a short read)
Case 4 Charges – Fail to Stop at a Stop Sign; Driving Under Suspension (this is a short read)
Case 5 Charges – Driving Without Insurance; Use Validation [sticker] Not Furnished by the Ministry; No Validation Permit (I have not started this one — there is too much work to do — it reveals a lot of issues and will not be addressed until adequate funding has been established.)
Case 6 Charges – No Valid Permit (this is also a big project that I haven’t started. It reveals a lot of issues with the system and will not be addressed until adequate funding has been established.)
Case 7 Charges – Assault w/Resisting Arrest (a criminal charge) (this is a very revealing case that shows criminal behavior by local police and much more)

 

Case 1 Charges – Speeding; and Driving Without Insurance: 

Here is the “Short to the Point Highlights” of this case as there is a lot of data to be presented for it. The more detailed version can be found on the Detailed Page (which includes scanned copies of transcripts; complaints (sadly, I can’t provide the head shaking responses to these complaints for legal reasons); Judging the Judge;  and other relevant material):

  • First off, this case turned into a big battle that really did not have anything to do with my original arguments. It turned into 11(b) and (d) Charter violations quickly (not getting tried within a reasonable time and not getting a fair hearing).
  • The speeding ticket was dealt with as a separate matter in a different court house. The details on what occurred there are irrelevant at this time.
  • The trial took over 2 years to take place and according to the facts as to why that occurred and to Supreme Court case law I was not at fault for this.
  • The Crown, from my perspective (I have to say it like this for legal reasons), clearly lied on the record to the presiding justice of the peace (JP) about my conduct leading up to the trial. This caused a hostile environment for me and a great injustice prevailed on this day that led to a conviction. This is a key issue in this matter and I encourage everyone to take a good look at this and see how it was dealt with from beginning to end.
  • I filed for an appeal and was discriminated at the first hearing after being labeled a free-man-on-the-land litigant. The judge at this hearing talked down to me and even told me to “shut up” at one point — completely unprofessional. The appeal hearing was granted but I faced this same judge again later. [This hearing was to enter into a recognizance to waive the fine of $5,000+ (you have to pay the fine before you can file for an appeal unless you do this). It also had to be determine whether there were grounds for an appeal hearing.]
  • At the appeal hearing all the material I provided regarding the law and the protection of my rights was ignored. The appeal judge had a duty to respond in detail to information I provided (a FACTUM AND AUTHORITIES (FAA) book was filed and was in his hands weeks prior to the hearing) and he did nothing of the sort at the hearing and in his REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (RFJ)).
  • The appeal judge, by way of his judgment, made it pretty clear to me that he was an unqualified judge as he had no clue what Common Law Maxims are. From my point of view and in my opinion (based on my research of the law), this is completely unacceptable.
  • In his RFJ, the appeal judge labeled me an Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant a.k.a. Free-man-on-the-Land litigants — which I am not. My motion arguments are of my own work based on the legal research I have conducted and to my knowledge OPCA litigants are not bringing forward Charter arguments. I was labeled this because of “some similarities”.
  • Obviously, I got nowhere with this appeal judge and had to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the Supreme Court of Ontario). This was the first time I actually witnessed “due process” in regards to how proceedings are to flow – I have my full say as the one bringing forward the motion (claim/claimant); then the Crown responds to my motion; and then I respond to the Crown with closing arguments. All this with no interruptions by the judge other than clarifying something that was said by one of the parties. The judge analyses all the information and makes a decision based on law (or the facts) right there and then or at later date.
  • The decision this Supreme Court judge made was completely puzzling as she (again) did not address any of the legal issues I brought forward. She simply stated there was “no merit” for my appeal and did not give details as to how my arguments did not work as it pertains to the law – ignoring case law; the Charter; Natural Justice; and Common Law Maxims (principles of law). She also failed to see clearly [I guess] within the transcript and with my explanation in court “as to how a hostile environment was created with the deceptive tactics used by the Crown”. (Note: These appeal arguments were not related to Right to Travel issues – they were focused on Charter rights issues pertaining to not getting a fair hearing and not being fully heard (11(d) Charter Application). The matter addressing not getting a trial within a reasonable time (11(b) Charter Application) was intended to be argued before the trial, but I did bring it to the attention of the appeal courts at certain times as that was what I was originally going to focus on before I sought out legal consultation. It was then that I learned that an 11(d) should be focused on for the appeal. Regardless, an 11(b) is still on the table.)
  • The real puzzler was the fact that she stated at the end of her hand written endorsement that, “While the appeal judge’s references to OPCA litigants may have been inappropriate in this particular case, they do not displace the conclusion.” This is stunning when it is quite clear in the appeal judge’s decision (his RFJ) that that is exactly why he dismissed the appeal. [A later case (Case 5) decision by another appeal judge (Superior Court) also resulted in another dismissal for the same reason — meaning, that is what I am being labeled as (an OPCA litigant) without a fair hearing and being heard “fully” as the law dictates via the Charter; case law, maxims, and Natural Justice (which is basically defined as a rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing).]
  • Another real puzzler was the fact that this Supreme Court judge stated (in regards to the 11(b) – having a trial within a reasonable time, which is about 9-10 months according to case law) that, “While the Crown disclosure may have been late, he received it more than one year prior to his trial.” The Crown gave me the Disclosure documents 13 months after the event and it was almost 2.5 years before the trial took place! That is completely unacceptable according to an 11(b) and a hard look at how that happened needed to take place – and it never did! This is super significant grounds for granting an appeal and the judge appears to just dismiss the fact that it took 2 and a half years to get to trial.
  • An explanation on every key point brought forward by me was completely absent the Supreme Court decision. Although there may have been mistakes in this entire legal process by me, the fact that I have no legal experience should bring a measure of leniency and mercy “to be fair”. On the other hand, the individuals acting as the Crown also made a number of errors (or was it intentional?) as well as the judges I had faced and that is unacceptable. This charge should have been dropped according to the Charter and Natural Justice alone.
  • Conclusion: I was denied the right to a fair hearing and to be heard fully at the two lower levels of the court and I clearly show, with the evidence I provided, how there was merit for an appeal victory. On the Disclosure issue alone, I received it 13 months later and I was denied the right to speak in response to (again, from my point of view) the Crown’s lies at the trial – which created a hostile environment from there on. (Note: I later discovered that two of the motion arguments I was attempting to bring forward (right to use the road and being forced into a private insurance contract) were Section 7 Charter violations, which I rectified for my other upcoming case(s).)

 

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 “opposed to force”? Keep in mind that there is no damaged party involved and I have an impeccable 30 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?

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. Quickly, 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.

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. I will get the transcript for public reading when funding is available… 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.

 

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 (above) 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 false claims about this recognizance — stating it was for bad behavior.]

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 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.

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 the reason why the Crown granted the stay (there was a good judge on duty)? Maybe it was because of the Constructive Notice I handed the officer at the scene of the event which, by the way, was never included in the Disclosure documents — in complete contradiction of R. v Stinchcombe).

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

 

Case 4 Charges – Fail to Stop at a Stop Sign; Driving Under Suspension:

Actual (Trial) Hearing Date: February 7th, 2014
JP: N/A
Prosecutor: A. Bruno

The Constructive Notice (mentioned in Case 3 above) was also handed to the officer at the scene of this event. This Notice was — again — not part of the Disclosure and once again in contradiction of the land mark Supreme Court of Canada case law R. v Stinchcombe. These people should know this stuff — they are failing in their duty to perform!

The grounds for me being denied my natural right to use the public roads with my private automobile were due to the fact that I had 2 beers almost 48 hours previous to the time of this event, which from a reasonable man’s point of view is zero justification for the infringement of this right. (I will note that my vehicle was impounded for more than a week (at my expense) because of this charge.)

Once again I filed the 2 motions for this case: the motion challenging jurisdiction and the Section 7 Charter Application. All the paperwork was in order and I was ready to proceed on the trial date. Again the jurisdiction motion is pretty much the same as the previous one and the Section 7 Charter Application is pretty much the same as well with the exception of edits at Tab 3 where the core argument sits.

What happened in court?

On this date I arrived in court early and observed the same prosecutor (Anthony Bruno) from Case 1 conducting the duties in the court that day. After learning that he would be dealing with my matter, I informed him that I would be letting the JP know that there is a conflict of interest here as I had filed a complaint against him. He didn’t say much and we left it at that.

The courtroom appeared to be empty as I once again had a day and a half booked (I motioned the court on a previous appearance to allow this time frame) to address my matter and the motions I had brought forward. Bruno gave me the impression that we would be moving forward with the legal proceedings and asked me to wait awhile until the JP appeared. I walked out into the hallway and stood around for about 5 minutes when I noticed the officer who issued me the Summons to Appear — he was there and indeed it looked as if we were moving forward with this case.

When I got called into the courtroom and the formalities began, Bruno immediately withdrew the charges for the reason being: that the “officer was not in attendance”. So, what was going on???

Judging the Judge: N/A

 

Case 5 Charges – Driving Without Insurance; Use Validation [sticker] Not Furnished by the Ministry; No Validation Permit:

This is a large case and a lot of things happened that I would like to share as this case also went to the Supreme Court of Ontario, but there is a lot of work involved in putting it all together. I don’t have the time and will only make the time if adequate funding is available.

 

Case 6 Charge – No Valid Permit:

Surprisingly, this case was largely dealt with at the lower level only. I lost and didn’t bother appealing it based on the fact that there are only 3 appeal judges at the Superior Court level and by this time I had already faced 2 who were quite familiar with me. It would have been a total waste of my time and money with little more to report on. However, there is a lot to talk about in regards to how this matter was handle by the JP in the lower court and I would like to share that with everyone. But, again, adequate funding is needed because there is a lot of work involved and transcripts still need to be obtained.

 

Case 7 Charge  Assault w/Resisting Arrest (a criminal charge):

You’re going to love this one!

Below is a short summary of the more detailed version that includes: My exact account of what took place, the officer’s account compiled from his report and testimony; a scanned portion of his report, a scanned copy of the trial transcript; a scanned copy of the judges judgment; and my Judging the Judge review.

READ this summary first before you move on to the more detailed page — the Assault w/Resist Arrest Case — as it will help the picture come together — unless you have watched my video, which has a brief rundown as well.

 

On November 29th, 2012 I left a pub (in my privately owned automobile) one evening after having 2 pints of beer over a span of 2 hours. I pulled out of the pub parking lot and drove about 150 to 200 meters down the road to a bank (as planned) with 4 friends and acquaintances (in my mini-van). I pulled onto the street where the bank was and parked immediately in an available parking spot right after the turn.

When I got out of my vehicle to proceed to the bank, a police officer was parked behind me/out of his cruiser and began yelling at me – ordering me into his vehicle to do an alcohol breath test. I walked over to him and tried to reason with him but he was overly aggressive with me right from the moment of first contact and he started accusing me of being “drunk”. I did not comply with his demands because of the manner in which he was speaking to me.

This conversation went on for about a minute in the same manner and I still refused to comply. He told me I was under arrest for impaired driving and tried to grab me but I took 2 steps backward and he stopped. Soon after that, I pulled out my cell phone and told him that we need to start this conversation over and that I’m going to record it. He said, “No… No” and then tried to grab my phone out my hands.

He then spoke a police code into his radio and soon after that he peppered sprayed me. Many police officers showed up right after that and I was slapped in handcuffs and taken to the local police station charged with “one” charge – Impaired Driving. For a good 45 minutes I had my hands cuffed behind my back with my eyes burning and nobody would do anything to address the physical pain I was in – my eyes were burning and I couldn’t even treat it.

At the station I was forced to do a breath test and I asked what law forces me to submit to this test? The answer was, “the Highway Traffic Act”. At that point, I stated — simply — that the Act does not apply to me and performed the test “under protest”.

I blew a low reading.

They dropped the charge of Impaired Driving and charged me with another “one”Assault w/Intent to Resisting Arrest!

I went to court about a month later and received my Disclosure documents and when I opened it up and read the report – I was stunned – it was a complete fabrication. There were so many lies told, but the key one that justified the charge was that I pushed the officer twice.

I had to shell out $6,000+ in legal fees. My lawyer tried reasoning with the Crown Prosecutor to settle with no success whatsoever. They were going all out to get a conviction – that was absolutely clear.

At the trial, the 4 witnesses were there and they were “Crown Witnesses” as the officers at the scene took their statements “for the Crown”. All 4 were brought into a room by the Crown Prosecutor at the same time and were simply asked if they wanted to change their statements (which they all answered, “no”). The witnesses were then released by the Crown and became witnesses for the Defense.

Incredibly, the trial proceeded and I say that because all the prosecutor had to do was ask each witness (individually would be the smart thing to do if you ask me) if they saw me push the officer (answer is, “no” of course) and ask them if they were willing to testify to that. That never happened!

At the trial, the officer testified and my lawyer nailed him on one key thing: the report he filled out at the scene of the event reflected that I was arrested for Impaired Driving “only”. A whole new set of notes made at the station reflected a different story and the charge of Assault w/Intent to Resisting Arrest. His response to not documenting the Assault charge at the scene when cross examined: “I forgot! Human error!”

Needless to say, the judge didn’t believe the officer (thank God I had a good one). As a matter of fact, the judge stated he found a number of things the officer said, “hard to believe” – things the officer said, “Made no sense”. The judge believed my testimony and 2 witness testimonies (2 of the 4 witnesses were not called upon to testify).

So, I get off the charge and immediately order the transcript of the judgment and hired a civil rights lawyer.

I have now paid out almost $20,000 (and counting) so far because of the actions of this officer. I have got to tell you that when I went into the courts standing in defense of my natural “fee free” right to use the roads with super strong arguments – I was accused of wasting the courts time and resources!! Think about that and what you just read (not to mention the magnitude of what is going on here).

Another thing I need to tell you about this officer: the amount of lies in his report and then repeating them on the witness stand tells me one thing that is clear about the people we entrust with a very important duty to fulfill, is that, “They have no problem lying under oath.” This cop, right before his testimony, held the Bible in his hands “firmly” and swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth – and then unloaded a ton of B.S.!

I found this to be very disturbing to say the least. Wait until you read about all the things that this officer said I did — astounding!

So these are my stories in my pursuit of: truth, justice and the liberties that I have an unalienable right to.