|
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY AGBC
|
|
The reason these
Justices have been able to get away with their criminal acts in
violation of their mandatory administrative functions, is because the
AGBCand the AGC are in conspiracy with them to pervert and defeat the
purpose of the law.
The Attorney Generals of BC and Canada have carved a secret door into
the chambers of these Justices and have enticed them into committing
perverted and disgusting acts.
What is the purpose of these
perverted acts?
Why! to save money of course!
And what do they do with all this saved money?
The judges of BC recently voted themselves a Fifty Thousand Dollar A
Year Raise.
That brings their annual salary to over $250,000 a year
And what do the
Attorney Generals
get
Why! They save money on court costs and on compensation payments for
wrongful convictions on those poor and ignorant innocents railroaded
through their
BIZZARO COURTS
One of the perverted pacts in their secret Boudoir is that there are
no innocents being prosecuted and therefore they are fully justified in
emasculating the rights of the criminal before their courts and
bypassing the mandatory safeguards of the Criminal Code. Their criminal
acts against those before their courts makes a complete mockery of that
most fundamental principle of law, THAT WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL
PROVEN GUILTY
I am one of those
wrongfully convicted innocents; David Millgard was
another wronfully convicted innocent who spent 23 years in jail for a
murder he never committed; Guy Paul Morin was another wrongfully
convicted innocent, a case which generated the Morin Inquiry
Recommendations. We are just a few of those who fought long enough and
hard enough to force these reversals. There are thousands of others who
were too poor and ignorant to prevail in that arena. The Juggernaught
of the law just crushes them and they crawl away with their wounds that
never heal.
They carry those
wounds to their graves
No one else speaks for them, so I guess I'll have to
The following excerpt shows the criminal conspiracy of the AGBC
It is also the criminal conspiracy of the AGC
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
20. It has been the illegal practice of the Criminal Trial
Courts in British Columbia to refuse to make the Mandatory record of
Proceedings that has been commanded by statute since at least 1869. I
draw this court's attention to a letter from David Parsons to
"Manager Court Services Victoria" Aug 20,
1996
I David Alexander Parsons
hereby apply to inspect and to verify the TRANSCRIPT of my trial
FILE86309-T wherein are transcribed the record of the statements of the
witnesses at my trial including my own statement and all other
statements of Attorneys, prosecutors, Judges, and Jury members, and the
record of any evidence and procedures introduced or having been taken
down by the official stenographer at my trial 96309-T.
In support of this application I enclose excerpts from the Criminal
Code of Canada (Martins Annual Criminal Code 1995…
…S. 603 which states that an accused is entitled after he
has been ordered to stand trial to inspect the evidence, his own
statement and the exhibits…
21.
Further I would direct this court's attention
to a reply from R. Fisher Criminal administrator Aug 26, 1996
"I am responding to your
memo of August 20, 1996, in which you request access to transcripts
arising from your trial in Supreme Court on court file #86309-T
Transcripts of the evidence taken in court are only produced if they
are ordered and paid for by one of the parties…"
This
statement of court procedure is in absolute violation of S.
540.(5) 1995 C.C. and it's predecessor s. 509 7. of 1892 C.C.
1995
s. 540. (5) Where evidence is taken down by a stenographer appointed by
the Justice or pursuant to law, it need not be read to or signed by the
witnesses, but
shall
be transcribed by the stenographer …
1892
s. 590 7. Provided that the evidence upon such inquiry or any part of
the same may be taken in short hand by a stenographer who may be
appointed by the justice and who before acting shall make oath that he
shall truly and faithfully report the evidence; and where evidence is
so taken, it shall not be necessary that evidence be read over to or
signed by the witness , but it shall be sufficient if the transcript
be signed by the Justice and be accompanied by an Affidavit of the
stenographer that it is a true report
22.
Further in his memo he stated:
"If an order is placed,
the original is then placed on the court file"
This is not only in
complete contradiction to the provisions of S. 590. 7., of
1892 and s. 540. (5) of 1995, but also contradicts s. 597. of
1892 and s. 603. (a) of 1995
1892
597. Every one who has
been committed for trial, whether he is bailed or not, may be entitled
at any time before the trial to have copies of the depositions, and of his
own statement, if any, from the officer who has custody thereof, on
payment of a reasonable sum not exceeding five cents for each folio of
one hundred words R.S.C., c. 174, s. 74
603. An accused is entitled,
after he is ordered to stand trial or at his trial,
(b) to receive, on
payment of a reasonable fee determined in
accordance with a tariff of fees fixed or
approved by the Attorney General of the province, a
copy
(iv) of the evidence
(v) of his own
statement, if any, and
(vi) of the indictment
23. And
further in his memo he stated
"You as the accused
person, are entitled to view all documents on your file, including any
transcripts. However no transcript order has been placed for your case,
and there are therefore no transcripts currently available for your
review."
The Criminal Statutes of
Canada have always stated that the Courts of Record of Canada
shall produce a legible record of the evidence on any criminal
proceedings and that an original deposition or transcript of that
evidence shall be kept in the custody of an officer of that court. And
further s. 530.1 of 1990 Criminal Code and it's present declaration
states in no uncertain terms that a transcript of everything that was
said in those proceedings shall be included in the record of
proceedings.
s. 530.1 Where an order
is granted under s. 530…
(g) the record of proceedings during the preliminary hearing
or trial shall include
(i) a
transcript of everything that was said during those proceedings in the
official language in which it was said
24. And he further stated in his memo
"As I understand it,
though, the real issue here is whether or not the court must provide
you with free
access to the transcripts. Although all of the sections of the Criminal
Code which you quote deal with access to transcripts and other
documents in the case, my interpretation is that none of them require
access at no cost. You are not being denied access, but you are being denied
free access"
This is in complete
contradiction of s. 603. (a) of 1995 Criminal Code and it's
present proclamation
s. 603. An accused is
entitled after he has been ordered to stand trial or at
his trial,
(a) to inspect without
charge the indictment, his own statement, the evidence and the
exhibits, …
A terrible miscarriage of Justice
has existed in the Criminal Justice system of British
Columbia where an accused is forced to produce the record of
proceedings that the Judge and the Court has always been commanded by
statute to produce and further the record of proceedings have been
concealed from an accused should he be impecunious and unable
to comply with the illegal requirements that he produce the record of
proceedings.
The memo of R. Fisher
Criminal administrator Aug 26, 1996 clearly show that the
Criminal Courts of Record of British Columbia have systematically been
denying their administrative duty to produce the record of proceedings
for the inspection and verification by the accused.
In
effect, the Court Services, and by implication, the Attorney General of
British Columbia, have been forcing the accused to finance
the production of the original transcript of the evidence of the
witnesses of the prosecution while referring to it as a "copy" and then
placing a copy in the record of proceedings and referring to it as the
"original". This monumental deception by court services has
led to at least one case of hardship and delay of Justice for
one wrongfully convicted person.
25. I refer this court to the Constitutional
Question of David Alexander Parsons in the Court of Appeal on
court file no.V02841 In this constitutional
question it was shown that the Court Reporters of British Columbia, who
were the official Stenographers in the superior courts, were required
by law to produce the transcript of the evidence of the witnesses at
the trial. It was not explicitly stated in that Constitutional Question
that the practice of the Court Reporters to refuse to make the
transcript that was required by law to be in the record of proceedings
unless the accused pays an exorbitant fee, was, in effect, nothing more
than Fraud
and Extortion.
Not long after that Constitutional Question was brought, Section 540 of
the Criminal Code of Canada was amended to force the justice to
complete his Mandatory Administrative Duty at the Request of the accused
1995
s. 540. (5) Where evidence is taken down by a stenographer appointed by
the Justice or pursuant to law, it need not be read to or signed by the
witnesses, but
shall be transcribed by the stenographer …
1998
s. 540. (5) Where evidence is taken down by a stenographer appointed by
the Justice or pursuant to law, it need not be read to or signed by the
witnesses, but, on
request of the justice or of one of the parties, shall be transcribed,
in whole or in part…
Not
long after that Constitutional Question, all the Court Reporters in
British Columbia were fired
26. The only applicable provisions in the Criminal
Code for transcript purchases by the accused occur in S. 682 and s.
603. and clearly state that he may purchase copies of the originals.
Again we are faced with the inescapable implication that the original
transcripts must exist before the request by the accused for inspection
and verification or to obtain copies. We are also faced with the
inescapable implication that rules of court must exist in relation to
transcripts.
s. 682. …
(4) a party to an appeal
is entitled to receive, on payment of any charges that are fixed
by rules of court,
a copy or transcript of any material that is prepared under subsection
(1) or (2).
s. 603. An accused is
entitled, after he is ordered to stand trial or at his trial,
…
(b) to receive, on
payment of a reasonable fee determined in accordance with a tariff of
fees fixed or approved by the Attorney General of the province, a
copy
(i) of the evidence
(ii) of his own statement, if any, and
(iii) of the indictment
27.
The only provisions for rules for
transcripts occur in s. 482 C.C.
s.
482. …
(3) Rules under subsection
(1) or (2) may be made
(d) to carry out the provisions of this act related to appeals
from
conviction, acquittal or sentence and without restricting the
generality of this paragraph,
(ii) for ensuring the accuracy of notes taken at a trial and
the verification of any copy or transcript.
(iii) for keeping writings, exhibits or other things connected with the
proceedings on the trial
(4) Rules of court that are made under the authority of this section
shall be published in the Canada Gazette
28. There are no published rules of court for the making,
keeping, verification, and inspection of transcripts for the Criminal
Courts of British Columbia. The
memo of R. Fisher Criminal administrator Aug 26, 1996 clearly
show that the only rules that exist are the secret and arbitrary rules
of the Criminal Administrators of the Court Services of British
Columbia and in effect are the efforts of the Attorney General of
British Columbia to commit Fraud and Extortion on the accused.
29. The Criminal Administrators of the Court Services of
British Columbia, and by implication, the Attorney General of
British Columbia, have clearly usurped the functions of the Judges and
the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia or the Governor General of
Canada and have been imposing unpublished and arbitrary rules that have
no foundation in the Criminal Law of Canada.
30. The Judges and Justices of the Criminal Courts
of British Columbia have clearly discarded their independence and
impartiality, and have allowed the Attorney General of British Columbia
to practice fraud and extortion on the accused before their courts, and
have clearly abandoned their Mandatory Administrative Duties under
Section 540 of the Criminal Code. The practice of the criminal courts
of defying their Mandatory Administrative Duties under s. 540 has
created a situation of inequality wherein a poor and ignorant accused,
who wishes to appeal a conviction, is disadvantaged at the hands of the
Judge or Justice who convicted him.
31. Upon Appeal of his conviction, a poor and ignorant
accused may have his appeal arbitrarily dismissed under rule 13
if he cannot comply with the requirements under
rule 7 of the Criminal Appeal Rules of the Court of Appeal
7.
Unless otherwise ordered by the court or a justice, the appellant
shall, within 60 days after filing the notice of appeal,
(a) file four copies each of an appeal book and transcript
or such additional copies as may be required by the registrar; and
(b) deliver one copy of the appeal book and transcript to
the
respondent
13.
(1) Where the appellant fails to
(a)
diligently pursue his appeal, or
(b) comply with these rules,
the respondent may apply to the court or, on an appeal where leave is
required, to a justice, for an order that the appeal be dismissed
(2) On an application under
subrule (1) or a reference under subrule (3),
(a) the court
may dismiss the appeal…
32. There is no Statute in the Criminal Law of Canada to
support Rule 7 of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. The
Criminal Rules made under S. 482 of the Criminal Code must have their
roots in statute law; they cannot be made up out of thin air. If it is
the intention of Parliament that the accused is to provide transcripts
to any person or court, on appeal, then that express provision would
exist in the Criminal Code. Section 682 of the Criminal Code States
explicitly and impliedly where the transcript to the Court of Appeal
comes from.
682. (1) …the judge
or provincial court judge who presided at the trial shall, at the request of the court of
appeal or a judge thereof, in
accordance with rules of court, furnish it or him with a report on the
case or on any matter relating to the case that is specified in the
request.
(2) A copy or transcript
of
(a) the evidence taken
at the trial…
shall be furnished to
the court of appeal, except insofar as it is dispensed with by order of
a judge of that court.
In relation to the above, the 1927 Criminal Code states:
S.1020 The judge or magistrate
before whom a person has been tried on indictment SHALL, in the case of
appeal... FURNISH to the court of appeal, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES OF
COURT, his
notes of the trial;
and SHALL also FURNISH to the court of appeal, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES
OF COURT, a report giving his opinion on the case or upon any point
arising in the case.
2. In all cases where
notes of the evidence or any part thereof have been made at the trial a
copy, or in the case of shorthand notes a transcript, of such notes
SHALL be made and furnished to the court of appeal
…
3. A copy or transcript,
as the case may be, of such notes shall be furnished to any
party interested upon such charges, if any, as may be fixed by rules of
court
5. RULES OF COURT may
make such provision as is necessary for securing the accuracy of the
notes to be taken and for the verification of any transcript thereof.
1923 c.41
The transcript demand of
S.682.(2) is clearly related to the demand in S.682.(1) ... the Judge
or provincial court Judge shall...IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES OF COURT,
furnish...
Nowhere in the Criminal Code is it stated that a convicted appellant
must supply any transcript to the Court of Appeal. In fact s. 682
states in subsection (1), that it is the judge who is explicitly
commanded and in subsection (2) it is the judge who is impliedly
commanded to furnish the transcript to the Court of Appeal. Clearly in
the 1927 Criminal Code, the parent section S.1020 is clearly stating
that the judge is being commanded in subsection 2 to furnish the
transcript to the court of appeal.
For
greater certainty, the original draft Bill for subsection (2) of s.
1020 of the old code read "furnished by the appellant" but the words
"by the appellant" were struck out in Parliament. It was never the
intention of Parliament that a convicted appellant furnish the
transcript that is required to be in the record of proceedings
IT IS ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR FROM THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF 1927 C.C. S.1020 and S.1020. 2.
and ITS PRESENT DECLARATION IN S.682 C.C. that there is no
provision that the convicted appellant make the record of proceedings
or furnish it to the court of appeal.
33. Apart from it's inherent illegality, rule 7 creates a
situation of inequality wherein a poor and ignorant appellant
may be denied an appeal, while a person who is not impecunious may
allow himself to be defrauded by the Attorney General of British
Columbia, and submit to the extortion of the Attorney General, and
produce the record of proceedings that the Judge or Justice has refused
to produce as a Court of Record, and then supply numerous copies of
that Record of Proceedings to the Court of Appeal and other parties
directed by the Court of Appeal and thereby obtain an appeal
that may be denied the poor and ignorant appellant who cannot buy an
appeal.
34. Rule 7 of the Court of Appeal should be repealed before
it causes any more mischief in the Criminal Justice System of British
Columbia. It is readily apparent that the refusal of the judge or
justice to make the record of proceedings, that a convicted
appellant may inspect under s. 603, to determine to the Court of Appeal
where lie the grounds of appeal, and the illegal requirements of rule 7
that a convicted appellant must supply numerous copies of the
non-existant transcript to the appeal court, combine to create hurdles
and obstacles that inevitably lead to insurmountable barriers to those
most socially and financially disadvantaged in our society in their
path to the appeal court.
R. v. Turpin (1989), 69 C.R. (3d) 97(S.C.C.)
"…the
application of s. 15 must advance it's purpose in remedying or
preventing discrimination against groups suffering social, political or
legal disadvantage in our
society"
35. I refer this
court to the letter from ""John Doe"" to
Manager Court Services. The body of the letter is included as the bulk
of this paragraph.
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am requesting to inspect and verify the transcript of the evidence of
the witnesses for the prosecution that was recorded by a sound
recording apparatus at the trial of this matter at the Victoria
courthouse on the ""Ides of March and day after and day
after"". This
request is made in reference to the request made to Judge
""Bollix"" as per the Notice of Motion as read into the record of
proceedings on ""Ides of March"" at the trial of this matter and in
reference to the applications to Judge ""Bollix"" after the evidence of
the witnesses for the prosecution had been taken and before the accused
was asked if he wished to call witnesses, that the accused requested
that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution be transcribed
according to the provisions of s. 540. (6). Of the Canadian Criminal
Code
Further I am requesting to inspect and verify the transcript of
everything that was said in those proceedings in the official language
in which it was said, according to the provisions of s. 530.1 (g)(I),
(ii), and (iii) of the Criminal Code.
Further I am requesting that this Court Services produce to me the
Rules of Court made pursuant to s. 482 of the Criminal Code for the
making, keeping, verification, and inspection of transcripts.
Without restricting the generality of the preceding paragraph, I am
requesting that this Court services produce to me the Rules of Court
that are required under s. 682. (4) of the Criminal Code and the Tariff
of Fees as fixed by the Rules of Court under s. 682. (4) that
are required under s. 603 (b)(I)
I am requesting that only those rules of court that have been published
in the Canada Gazette be produced to me.
If you are unable to produce any of the materials requested, please
provide any explanation or directives from your superiors in respect of
your inability to produce the Rules of Court requested or the tariff of
fees pursuant to those Rules of Court.
If you do not have the transcripts referred in this letter for my
inspection and verification, then please provide explanation or
directives from your superiors as to why the transcripts have not been
made according to the mandatory requirements of S. 530.1 (g)(I), (ii),
and (iii).
Could you please reply as soon as possible, as I am due to make
submissions in the Supreme Court on after ""Ides of March"".
ATTACHMENT: Notice of Motion to Judge ""Bollix"" on
Provincial Court file no. ""gadzillion""
36. And further
is included the bulk of the ATTACHMENT
"Notice of Motion"
Notice of Motion
Take notice that ""John Doe"" hereby applies to the presiding Judge at
the
trial of this matter At ""Mars"" Courthouse on ""Ides of March"" for
the
following.
Whereas Judge ""Bollix"" has granted an order for the federal crown
that the accused is barred from being represented by his chosen counsel
David Parsons and whereas the accused has stated to Judge ""Bollix""
and ""Judas"" of the Federal Crown that he only wishes to be
represented by
his chosen counsel David Parsons, and whereas the accused is
now being forced to proceed unrepresented in his trial, it is requested
that the presiding Judge produce to the unrepresented accused the Rules
of Court made pursuant to s.482 of the Criminal Code for the procedure
of his bilingual trial.
Further this unrepresented accused requests that the Rules of Court
made pursuant to s. 482. (3) for the making, keeping, verification and
inspection of transcripts, and without restricting the generality of
the foregoing, the rules of court for the provisions of 540. (2) and s.
(540) (6) of the Criminal Code, be produced to him.
Further the accused requests that the rules of court for the making of
the form for the requests under S. 540. (6) be produced to
him and further the accused requests the rules for the form
for the requests under s. 540. (6) in relation to the mandatory
administrative duty of the Judge to verify to the accused, the legible
record of the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution,
under subsection (1) and subsection (2) before the accused
enters upon his defence.
Without restricting the generality of the foregoing the accused
requests that the presiding judge produce the form for the request by
the accused, that the record of the sound recording of the witnesses
for the prosecution. be transcribed and further, that those transcripts
be verified by the accused before he enters on his defence.
The accused requests that only those rules Published in the Canada
Gazette be produced.
The accused requests that this notice of motion be placed in the record
of proceedings .
37. And further
is included the body of the reply from
""Ding
Dong"", Area Manager, Court Services, ""Mars"".
I am writing in response
to your letter of ""just after Ides of March"",
wherein you make two requests, the first being to "inspect and verify
the transcript" of your proceedings, and the second being copies of the
Regulations published in the Canada Gazette. I will address your
requests in the order you made them.
You mentioned your desire to "inspect and verify the transcript" of
your proceedings on ""Ides of March and day after and day after "".
With respect to this request, there is no transcript
on the above mentioned file. The presiding judge did not order that one
be produced and in fact dismissed your application, as you may remember
from the proceedings. You are welcome to order the
transcript yourself, however. The procedure for doing so is to contact
the private transcription firm, JC Word Assist, at the following
telephone number: 1-888-811-9882. When you do so, please be
sure to mention that your trial was heard in French, because our French
trial service is based in New Westminster and JC Word Assist will need
to obtain the recording of the proceedings from there..
The Canada Gazette is a federal publication and in the public domain,
available to you and any member of the public at the following website:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca
I encourage you to visit the site and you will be able to search for
the items you seek.
I hope that this answers your questions and meets your needs
""Ding Dong""
Area Manager, Court Services
""Mars""
Ministry of the Attorney General
38. The refusal of Judge ""Bollix"" to make the record of
proceedings as attested to by the words of ""Ding
Dong""… there
is no transcript on the above mentioned file. The presiding judge did
not order that one be produced and in fact dismissed your application,
as you may remember from the proceedings…"
leaves judge ""Bollix"" not only in violation of s. 540. (6) but also
in total violation of s. 530.1
s. 530.1 Where an order is granted under s. 530…
(g) the record of proceedings during the
preliminary hearing or trial shall include
(i) a transcript of
everything that was said during those proceedings in the official
language in which it was said
39. It has been the illegal practice of the criminal courts
of British Columbia to refuse to make the transcript which is
an essential part of the record of proceedings of those Courts of
Record. That refusal to perform their Mandatory Administrative
Functions, to produce the Record of Proceedings existed long before
Justice Hutchison refused to make the Record of Proceedings
of Mr. Parsons's Trial in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. Those refusals did not go unnoticed by Parliament. In order
to remedy that illegality, Parliament passed a set of statutes in 1990,
which took the decision to make the transcript of the trial out of the
hands of the judges and placed it in the hands of the accused. That law
was firmly entrenched in the Constitutional right to our language of
choice. It is a law which cannot be altered or interpreted by the
judges of British Columbia without creating mischief and inequality in
the criminal courts
s. 530. (1) On application by an
accused whose language is one of the official languages of
Canada…
…the justice
of the peace or judge shall grant an order…
s. 530.1 Where an order is granted under s. 530…
(g) the record of proceedings during the preliminary hearing
or trial shall include
(i) a transcript of everything that was said during those
proceedings in the official language in which it was said
40. In total Defiance of the efforts of Parliament, many of
the judges of British Columbia interpreted these non-interpretable
statutes to mean the exact opposite of their plain meaning and
continued their illegal practice of refusing to make the record of
proceedings. I bring this court's attention to the transcript of the
application to Judge Ehrcke of the Provincial Court of British Columbia
by David Parsons on court file no. 05192-A on 14 January, 1997. This
application was for an order under s, 530. (1) of the Criminal Code. An
excerpt from Judge Ehrcke demonstrates the determination of these
judges to continue on with their illegal practice of refusing to make
the record of proceeding.
.
THE COURT:
"…The wording of s. 530, on the face of it, appears to be
mandatory. However, I interpret the section such that it's mandatory if
the accused person would not otherwise be provided with a trial in the
official language he speaks. I am not going to use the section to
achieve indirectly, except under the legal aid program or other
similiar programs and
that is to obtain a transcript without charge. I therefor
deny the application, sir…"
Not only did this judge commit a substantial wrong in the words of the
Supreme Court of Canada:
she implied that the application was somehow improper and that the
application for the absolute right to the order under section 530 and
the mandatory requirements that the judge make the record of
proceedings which includes a transcript of everything that was said in
those proceedings was in some way an attempt by the applicant to
somehow obtain a transcript without cost.
41. It was again apparent that the judges and Attorney
General of British Columbia were ignoring these statutes and continuing
on with their illegal practice of refusing to make the record of
proceedings. Parliament again had to take action, and proceeded to
modify s. 540 of the Criminal Code, to again take decision out of the
hands of the judges and Attorney General and place it in the hands of
the accused if the judges neglected to make the record of proceedings.
In 1998 s. 540. (5) and (6) were modified to give the accused the right
to request that the evidence of the witnesses be transcribed.
1995
s.
540. (5) Where evidence is taken down by a stenographer appointed by
the Justice or pursuant to law, it need not be read to or
signed by the witnesses, but shall be transcribed by
the stenographer …
1998
s. 540. (5) Where evidence is taken down by a stenographer appointed by
the Justice or pursuant to law, it need not be read to or signed by the
witnesses, but, on
request of the justice or of one of the parties, shall be transcribed,
in whole or in part…
1995
s. 540. (6) Where, in accordance with this Act, a record is
taken in any proceedings under this Act by a sound recording apparatus,
the record so taken shall
be dealt with and transcribed,...
1998
s. 540. (6) Where, in
accordance with this Act, a record is taken in any proceedings under
this Act by a sound recording apparatus, the record so taken shall,
on request of the justice or one of the parties, be dealt with and
transcribed, in whole or in part…
42. It is now absolutely plain that the judges of the Trial
Courts of British Columbia are past the point of no return.
Their interpretations of the statutes enacted by Parliament to Remedy
the substantial wrongs and mischief created by
these judges has reached the point of schizophrenic nonsense.
43. At the hearing before Judge ""Bollix"" on ""an
infamous
day"" on provincial court file ""gadzillion"" brought by
""Judas"" to bar David Parsons from representing John Doe in any
further proceedings, Judge ""Bollix"" stated "you
are trying to obtain transcripts without cost",
when David Parsons Stated to the court " the accused may inspect under
s. 603, the transcript that is required to be in the record of
proceedings according to the mandatory requirements of S. 530.1, to
determine to the Court of Appeal, where lie the Grounds of
appeal". David Parsons replied "You are putting words in my
mouth" and then repeated that the accused would only be inspecting the
transcript to determine to the Court of Appeal,; where lie the grounds
of appeal. Judge ""Bollix"" again stated "you are trying to obtain
transcripts without
cost"
THE SCHIZOPHRENIC
STATEMENTS OF JUDGE EHRCKE IN JANUARY, 1997 AND JUDGE ""Bollix""
IN 2005 SEEM TO HAVE BEEN READ FROM THE SAME
SCRIPT. IT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THESE JUDGES
THAT THE SIMPLE COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR MANDATORY
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES AT THE REQUEST OF THE ACCUSED IS, IN
SOME SCHIZOPHRENIC WAY, "ILLEGAL" AND WOULD AFFORD THE ACCUSED SOME
UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. IN THE PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION THIS IS KNOWN AS
TRANSFERENCE: TO JUSTIFY THEIR ILLEGAL REFUSAL TO MAKE THE RECORD OF
PROCEEDINGS AND THEREBY DENY THE ACCUSED HIS RIGHTS, THESE JUDGES HAVE
PROJECTED THEIR GUILT ONTO THE ACCUSED. ANY ATTEMPT BY THE
ACCUSED TO FORCE THESE JUDGES TO COMPLY WITH THEIR MANDATORY
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THEIR DUTY TO MAKE THE RECORD
OF PROCEEDINGS, IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER
ACTIVITY.
44. THE
ACTIONS OF JUDGE ""Bollix"" AND ""Judas"" WERE A MINDLESS
ATTEMPT TO DEMONIZE THE CHOSEN COUNSEL DAVID PARSONS AND
PROJECT THEIR OWN GUILT ONTO THE CHOSEN COUNSEL: IT WAS ABSOLUTELY
APPARENT THAT THE CHOSEN COUNSEL WAS GOING TO FORCE THE COURT TO COMPLY
WITH THEIR MANDATORY ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS UNDER SECTIONS
530, 530.1, 540, AND 603 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. IT
WAS ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE THAT THEY REMOVE THIS THREAT TO THEIR
COUNTERFEIT INTEGRITY. IT WAS A DESPERATION MOVE BY AN
IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL CARICATURE SENSING THE APPROACH OF IT'S IMMENENT
DEMISE.
45.
John Doe made the notice of motion to
Judge ""Bollix"" for the rules of court for his bilingual
trial. ""Bollix"" refused the applications.
46. John Doe has applied to Judge ""Bollix"" for
the rules of procedure governing his request under s. 540.
(6) that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution be
transcribed and verified to him before he is asked if he wishes to call
witnesses. ""Bollix"" refused to produce them
47. John Doe has requested that Judge ""Bollix""
produce the form for his request under s. 540. (6).
""Bollix"" directed him to the court services, where he was presented
with a contract to a private company. John stated that this
was not a proper form for his request to the judge.
48. John Doe has requested to Judge ""Bollix"" that
the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution be transcribed and
verified to him before he enters upon his defence. ""Bollix""
refused.
49. The Mandatory Administrative function of s.
540. (6) was not completed
50. John Doe
stated that he was proceeding on protest that
s. 540. (6) was not complied with and refused to make any defence until
s. 540. (6) was complied with.
51. Judge
""Bollix"" convicted John Doe and sentenced him
52. John Doe requested the court services to
produce for his inspection and verification, the transcript of the
trial which is required to be in the record of proceedings according to
the mandatory requirements of s. 530.1 of the criminal code
s.
530.1 Where an order
is granted under s. 530…
(g) the record of proceedings during the preliminary hearing
or trial shall include
(i) a transcript of
everything that was said during those proceedings in the official
language in which it was said
53. As stated by ""Ding Dong"" of Court Services
"… there
is no transcript on the above mentioned file. The presiding judge did
not order that one be produced and in fact dismissed your application,
as you may remember from the proceedings…"
54.
It is now plain that
the judges and Attorney General of
British Columbia are determined to continue on with what can only be
described as a Criminal Conspiracy to pervert and defeat the purpose of
the law and to deprive the accused of his legal and constitutional
rights. Parliament created s. 530 and s. 530.1 as a back door for these
judges and the Attorney General to exit gracefully from their Criminal
Conspiracy, but these judges and the Attorney General of British
Columbia refused to exit by this back door. Parliament then created
another back door; they modified s. 540. (5) and
(6). The Attorney General responded by firing all the Court Reporters
(who were the official court stenographers) in British Columbia which
ensured that they could not be forced to produce the transcript to
complete the record of proceedings in all current and previous criminal
trials.
55. The Attorney
General of British Columbia and the judges
of the criminal courts of British Columbia are now pretending that the
sound recording is the complete record of proceedings of any criminal
trial despite the fact that s. 530.1 states " the record of
proceedings shall include a transcript of everything that
was said in those proceedings in the official language in
which it was said". Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal
of British Columbia is illegally forcing convicted
appellants to submit to the Fraud and Extortion of the Attorney
General, by imposing a rule of court that in effect forces the accused
to finance the production of the transcript to complete the record of
proceedings in order for the accused to obtain copies to comply with
that illegal rule; the accused is forced to contract with a private
company and submit to the Fraud and Extortion of this criminal
conspiracy.
56. By no
stretch of the imagination, can the judges
of the trial courts and the Court of Appeal of British
Columbia be considered to be independent and impartial. They would all
have to be deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid to be unaware of this
disgusting shell game.
57. There can be
only one feeble excuse for the refusal of
these judges to perform their Mandatory Administrative Duty to make the
complete Record of Proceedings; if the production of the transcript is
not wholly within their administrative duties and is in fact, the
responsibility of the Attorney General of British Columbia.
Such an interpretation could be inferred from the provisions of s. 540.
(5), and (6), that the court reporters (stenographers) and sound
recording apparatus are managed by the court services, which are under
the administration of the Attorney General of British Columbia. Such a
situation would relieve these judges of some of the mischief of leaving
the Record of Proceedings incomplete and thereby creating obstacles,
hurdles and barriers in the path of the convicted appellant to the
appeal court. However, these judges cannot avoid
responsibility for any omissions by the Attorney General to produce the
transcript required by law. It has been their historical duty to verify
the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution (in legible writing
on one side only of a piece of paper) to the accused before he is asked
if he wishes to call witnesses. It is only in
recent times that that duty has been consolidated in s. 603, along with
the historical right of the accused to take copies of the transcript
for a reasonable fee,
s.
603. An
accused is entitled … at his trial,
(a)
to inspect
without charge…, the evidence and the
exhibits, …
(b) to
receive, on payment of a reasonable fee determined in
accordance with a tariff of fees fixed or
approved by the Attorney General of the province, a copy
(I) of the
evidence
(II)
of his own
statement, if any, and
(III) of the indictment
58.
There are two types of indictable trials
without a preliminary hearing possible in British Columbia:
(i) by direct indictment
in the Supreme Court
(ii) an indictable trial
under part XIX of the Criminal Code
In both these trials the
accused may request under s. 540. (6) that the evidence of the
witnesses for the prosecution be transcribed and then is entitled under
s. 603. (a), before he is asked if he wishes to call
witnesses, to inspect, without charge, that transcript. The judge is
still under a mandatory administrative duty to ensure that a transcript
of the witnesses for the prosecution is made at the request of the
accused before he is asked if he wishes to call witnesses. If it is
indeed the duty of the Attorney General to transcribe the evidence of
the witnesses for the prosecution, then the trial is delayed by the
Attorney General and not the accused when the accused refuses to make a
defense and proceeds on protest. Until the accused is allowed his
request under s. 540. (6), and is allowed to inspect the
transcript of the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, under
s. 603. (a), there is no authority for the judge to proceed to s. 541.
of the criminal code. Any conviction would be, in the words
of the Supreme Court of Canada, a substantial wrong.
s. 530. (1) On
application by an accused whose language is one of the official
languages of Canada…
…the justice of the peace or judge shall
grant an order…
R.
v. BEAULAC (SCC)
"The violation
of s. 530 is a substantial wrong and not a
procedural irregularity"
s. 540. (5) Where evidence is taken down by a stenographer appointed by
the Justice or pursuant to law, it need not be read to or signed by the
witnesses, but, on
request of the justice or of one of the parties, shall be transcribed,
in whole or in part…
s. 540. (6) Where, in accordance with this Act, a record is taken in
any proceedings under this Act by a sound recording apparatus, the
record so taken shall,
on request of the justice or one of the parties, be dealt with and
transcribed, in whole or in part…
The command in s. 540. (6)
is directed to whomever is responsible for transcribing the
record taken by the sound recording apparatus. It is apparent from s.
540. (5), that it is not the accused, but a person appointed by the
judge or Attorney General. It is immaterial whether the judge or the
Attorney General transcribes the evidence, it is required by law to be
transcribed not only under s. 540. (6), but also under s. 530.1. It is
absolutely required by law to be in the record of proceedings that the
accused is entitled to inspect under s. 603. (a) at his trial.
59. The judges and the Attorney General of British
Columbia are playing a shell game, where each is denying that they are
responsible for producing the record of proceedings at the trial, using
the fact, that, s. 540. (6), does not explicitly name the official that
is required by law to produce the transcript of the evidence of the
witnesses for the prosecution. This shell game involves the willful
blindness of both those judges and the Attorney General to the implied
nature of the command of s. 540. (6)
S. 44(f) and except to
the extent that the provisions of the new enactment are not in
substance the same as those of the former enactment, the new enactment
shall not be held to operate as new law, but shall be construed and
have effect as a consolidation and as declaratory of the law as
contained in the former enactment.
The concordance of
statutes reaching back to at least 1869, in paragraphs 16 to 19
inclusive, clearly show that it is still the duty of the judge or
justice to make or cause to be made the record of the witnesses for the
prosecution, in legible writing on one side only of a piece of paper,
and that the accused has a continuing right to have that
record, in legible writing, on one side only of a piece of
paper, verified to him before he is asked if he wishes to call
witnesses. If, indeed, it is the duty of the Attorney General to make
the transcript of the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution,
then the judge is still responsible for causing that to happen. As a
Court of Record she is still required to have the transcript of the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, to be in the record of
proceedings for the inspection and verification by the accused before
he is asked if he wishes to call witnesses.
60. Is the Attorney General responsible for
transcribing the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution? I bring
this courts attention to the Judgement for the Constitutional Question
of David Parsons in the Court of Appeal on CA No. V02841 This Judgement
was read to Judge """"Bollix"""" and ""Judas"" at the trial by John
Doe.
Included here is the body of that judgement
"MACFARLANE, J. A.: We
have all read the charge to the jury.
In reading that charge we find a review of the evidence, which permits
us to say that the second ground of appeal, that is, that the verdict
was unreasonable, is not without merit. The appellant is entitled to
argue that ground. He cannot do so without a transcript. He can only do
so if an order is made under s. 684. We are prepared to make that
order, and to adjourn the appeal until a transcript is in hand.
Counsel for the appellant concedes that the order under s. 684 disposes
of the need to address the constitutional issue.
…The appeal is adjourned generally. An order under s. 684 is
made. The constitutional issue stands abandoned. The cost of
the transcript will be paid by the Crown…
The Court of Appeal did not order that Justice Hutchison, who presided
at the wrongful conviction of David Parsons, to produce the transcript;
they ordered the Crown to produce the transcript. The delay of several
years before Mr. Parsons was finally ACQUITTED by the court of
appeal, of the wrongful conviction before Justice Hutchison,
was due entirely to the shell game practiced by the judges and the
Attorney General of British Columbia to pretend that they are not
responsible to make the Record of Proceedings. If the Record of
Proceedings of his trial had included the transcript of the evidence of
the witnesses for the prosecution as commanded by s. 540. (5) of 1995
Criminal Code,
1995
s. 540. (5) Where
evidence is taken down by a stenographer appointed by the Justice or
pursuant to law, it need not be read to or signed by the witnesses, but
shall
be transcribed by the stenographer …
and had been available
thereby, for the inspection and verification by the accused under s.
603,
s. 603. An accused is
entitled after he has been ordered to stand trial or at his trial, (a)
to inspect without charge the indictment, his own statement, the
evidence and the exhibits, …
Mr. Parsons would have
been able to determine to the Court of Appeal where lie the facts for
the grounds of appeal.
61. The hardships and disadvantage suffered by Mr.
Parsons were due entirely to the fact that the judges of British
Columbia had abandoned their independence and impartiality and have
allowed the Attorney General of British Columbia to practice fraud and
extortion on the accused before their courts.
62. The Chosen Counsel (David Parsons) of John Doe had
explained to John, before that counsel agreed to represent him, that
the arrest by the officer had been unlawful and that the alleged
evidence obtained by that unlawful arrest would not be admissable
before an independant and impartial tribunal. He further stated to John
that the judges and Attorney General had a history of unlawful behavior
in the criminal courts and had demonstrated a blind eye to the illegal
acts of police officers in courtrooms. He showed John the Writ Of
Mandamus issued to David Parsons by Justice Owen-Flood of the
Supreme
Court of British Columbia directing Justice of the Peace Allison Holmes
to issue process against Corporal Mielke of the RCMP for Perjury at the
trial of the wrongful conviction of David Parsons. He further showed
John theStay of Proceedings ordered by the Attorney General against
the process ordered by Justice Owen-Flood.
63. The chosen counsel predicted to John that the officer
would fabricate evidence and the trial judge would ignore the illegal
arrest by the police officer and allow the inadmissable evidence from
that illegal arrest, and would further ignore the illegal activities of
the police officer to obstruct justice and conspire to obstruct
justice. He further stated to John that the judge and Attorney General
would violate his right to request that the evidence of the witnesses
for the prosecution be transcribed pursuant to s. 540. (6) of
the Criminal code, and that if he was convicted, on evidence which was
not admissable under law, the judge and the Attorney General would also
violate the Mandatory provisions of S. 530.1 and as a
consequence, his right under s. 603. (a) to inspect and verify the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution that was required by law
to be in the record of proceedings.
s.
530.1 Where an order is granted under s. 530…
(g) the record of proceedings
during the preliminary hearing or trial shall include
(i) a transcript of
everything that was said during those proceedings in the official
language in which it was said
s. 603. An accused is
entitled … at his trial,
(a) to inspect
without charge…, the
evidence and the exhibits,
64. The chosen counsel also predicted to John that the judge
and prosecutor would conspire to separate John from his chosen counsel
so that they could continue with their illegal practice of refusing to
make the record of proceedings in violation of s. 540. (6) and s. 530.1
65. The chosen counsel also stated to John that the
purpose of the Cakehole Law Foundation was to bring about judicial
reform of the criminal law practice in British Columbia and that the
activities for reform would probably take place in the appeal courts
because the trial courts would not entertain any motions that would
nullify their illegal procedures, and the best possible
outcome for the society was for John to be convicted and then be
acquitted by the appeal court, and in the process bring about reform of
the illegal practices of the trial courts to refuse to make the record
of proceedings. He also stated to John that the chosen counsel was
forced to serve a sentence before his wrongful conviction was
overturned, and an acquittal ordered by the appeal court. He stated to
John that he may have to serve a sentence before he can obtain a proper
hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
66. Every event predicted by the Chosen Counsel has
materialized and every violation has been perpetrated. John Doe has
been unlawfully convicted in The Court of Judge ""Bollix"". An
unlawful situation exists in the Criminal Justice System of British
Columbia where an unrepresented accused is being forced to serve a
sentence by a judge who has lost jurisdiction by refusing to complete
her mandatory Administrative function under s. 540. (6) and s. 603 and
s. 530.1 of the Criminal Code. Further, her refusal to complete her
Mandatory Administrative functions has left the accused disadvantaged
in his path to the appeal court. Without the ability to inspect the
transcript of the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, and
the transcript of the entire proceedings as commanded by s. 530.1, to
be in the record of proceedings, the accused is unable to determine to
the Court of Appeal, where lie the grounds of appeal and the facts for
the grounds of appeal.
67. It is the request of the accused that there be made
rules of court governing the matters of the requests made in the Notice
of Motion to Judge ""Bollix"" and in the request to Court
Services,
pursuant to the included materials in paragraphs 35 and 36. Further,
the accused requests that the rules of court specify the officer of the
court or the person of the Ministry of the Attorney General who is
responsible to transcribe the evidence of the witnesses for the
prosecution. Further, the accused demands that rule 7 of the Court of
Appeal criminal rules be declared unconstitutional and be further
repealed.
68. John Doe hereby makes request to this court to declare
the conviction unlawful and null and void and further demands the
following extraordinary remedies to remedy the mischief created by
Judge """"Bollix"""" and the Judges of the Criminal Courts of British
Columbia and the Attorney General of British columbia and the Attorney
General of Canada
APPLICATIONS FOR EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDIES
The following
Extraordinary Remedies are requested
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS SOUGHT TO COMPELL JUDGE ""Bollix"" OF
THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TO PERFORM HER
MANDATORY ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION AS A COURT OF RECORD PURSANT TO s.
540. (6) AND s. 530.1 AND s. 603 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA IN
RELATION TO THE NOTICE OF MOTION OF THE ACCUSED AT HIS TRIAL BEFORE HER
IN THIS MATTER PROVINCIAL COURT FILE NO. ""gadzillion""
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS SOUGHT TO COMPELL THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BC TO
MAKE RULES OF COURT NOT INCONSISTANT WITH THE CRIMINAL CODE AND ANY
OTHER ACT OF PARLIAMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA FOR THE MAKING,
KEEPING, VERIFICATION, AND INSPECTION OF THE TRANSCRIPTS GENERATED BY
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 540. (6) AND 530.1 AND 603. OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS SOUGHT TO COMPELL THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BC TO
MAKE RULES OF COURT NOT INCONSISTANT WITH THE CRIMINAL CODE AND ANY
OTHER ACT OF PARLIAMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA FOR PROCEDURE IN
THE ACCUSED BILINGUAL TRIAL
A WRIT OF PROHIBITION IS SOUGHT TO PROHIBIT ANY JUDGE OF THE PROVINCIAL
COURT FROM PROCEEDING ON ANY TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED IN THIS CASE UNTIL
PROPER RULES OF COURT NOT INCONSISTANT WITH THE CRIMINAL CODE AND ANY
OTHER ACT OF PARLIAMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA ARE IN PLACE FOR
THE ACCUSED BILINGUAL TRIAL
A WRIT OF PROHIBITION IS SOUGHT TO PROHIBIT ANY JUDGE OF THE PROVINCIAL
COURT FROM PROCEEDING ON A TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED UNTIL PROPER RULES OF
COURT NOT INCONSISTANT WITH THE CRIMINAL CODE AND ANY OTHER
ACT OF PARLIAMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA ARE IN PLACE FOR THE
MAKING, KEEPING, VERIFICATION, AND INSPECTION OF TRANSCRIPTS GENERATED
BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 540. (6) AND 530.1 AND 603. OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
A WRIT OF PROHIBITION IS SOUGHT TO PROHIBIT JUDGE ""PIZZA"" OR ANY
OTHER
JUDGE OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT FROM DENYING THE ACCUSED HIS RGHT TO BE
REPRESENTED BY HIS CHOSEN COUNSEL David Parsons
So whaddaya think folks?
Should these judges boot those lotharios from their boudoir and nail
that door shut so they can't sneak back in?
THE BULLETIN BOARD WILL BE UP SOON FOR YOUR COMMENTS
The next installment is being constructed
THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY THE ATTORNEYS AND LAW SOCIETY OF BC
RETURN TO
TOP