THE ANTI-ATTORNEY AND THE BIZARRO COURTS
|
You folk can be the Judge of what these judges should do. I'm sure that all those reading this, who have not been victims of the system, are a little confused about how these judges and attorneys could have gone so far astray. The answer is so simple, it's ludicrous. They say that money is the source of all evil! In the early days of the "Common Law" Justices and Majistrates were given fixed budgets for criminal proceedings and when sherrifs or other officials overloaded their courts, they could only process a limitted number of cases, especially if the convicted were poor and unable to pay fines. They were also required as "Courts of Record" to make a record of proceedings. Their mandatory administrative duties were spelled out in the proclamation of 1869 This primitive statute had certain inadequacies: It only required that the evidence be taken in the presence of the accused, that he had full opportunity to cross-examine and the Justice was required to put it in writing.The Justice would read his scribble over to the witnesses and then the witnesses would sign it and then He would read it over to the accused; all without anyone other than the Justice actually reading it. Then, if the witness was not available for trial, the depositions would be entered as full evidence. The accused would be hard pressed to prove that the evidence was not what the witness testified, especially if the witness was not available for trial. In many cases the depositions were illegible, even to the Justice himself. These stautes left ample room for corruption and injustice. CAP.XXIX
An act respecting Procedure in Criminal Cases, and other matters relating to Criminal Law Whereas, by divers acts passed during the now last and present sessions of Parliament, certain provisions of the statute law of the several Provinces of Canada, respecting certain crimes and offences, have been assimilated, amended and consolidated, and extended to all of Canada… 29…such Justice or Justices before he or they commit such accused person to prison for trial, or before he or they admit him to bail, shall , in the presence of the accused person, (who shall be at liberty to put questions to any witness produced against him,) take the statement (M)on oath or affirmation of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case, and shall put the same in writing, and such depositions shall be read over to and signed respectively by the witnesses so examined, and shall be signed by the Justice or Justices taking the same. 30. The justice or Justices shall, before any witness is examined, administer to such witness the usual oath or affirmation,which such justice or Justices are empowered to do, and if upon the trial of the person accused, it be proved upon oath or affirmation of any credible witness, that any person whose deposition has been taken as aforesaid, is dead, or is so ill as not to be able to travel, or is absent from Canada, and if it also be proved that such deposition was taken in the presence of the person accused, and that he, his Counsel, or Attorney, had full opportunity of cross-examining the witness, then if the deposition purports to be signed by the Justice by or before whom the same purports to have been taken, it shall be read as evidence in the prosecution without further proof thereof, unless it be proved that such deposition was not in fact signed by the Justice purporting to have signed the same. 31. After the
examination
of all the witnesses for the prosecution have been completed, the
Justice or one of the Justices by or before whom the
examinations
have been completed, shall,
without requiring the attendance of the witnesses, read or cause to be
read to the accused,
the depositions taken against him…
The inadequacies of this statute raised a dark spector: A criminally minded
or merely
deranged Justice might write something different from the statements of
the witness and then read something else to the witnesses and the
accused. This statute left ample room for criminality, derangement, or
just mere incompetence.
Parliament
proclaimed a number of statutes to remedy the
inadequacies and to remove any spector of injustice created by that
inadequate statute, culminating in the proclamations of 1892
in
the first codification of the criminal statutes of Canada.
In 1892 The Criminal Code of Canada proclaimed 590.
When the accused is before a Justice holding an inquiry, such Justice
shall take the evidence of the witnesses called on the part of the
prosecution.
2. The evidence of the said witnesses shall be given upon oath and in the presence of the accused; and the accused, his counsel or solicitor, shall be entitled to cross-examine them 3. The evidence of each witness shall be taken down in writing in the form of a deposition, which may be in the form S in schedule one hereto, or to the like effect. 4. Such depositions shall, at some time before the accused is called on for his defense, be read over to and signed by the witness and the Justice, the accused, the witness and the Justice all present together at the time of such reading and signing. 5. The signature of the Justice may either be at the end of the deposition of each witness, or at the end of several or of all the depositions in such a form as to show that the signature is meant to authenticate each separate deposition. 6. Every Justice holding a preliminary inquiry is hereby required to cause the depositions to be written in a legible hand and on one side only of each sheet of paper on which they are written R.S.C., c. 174, s. 69. 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 of the evidence. 591. After the examination of the witnesses produced on the part of the prosecution has been completed, and after the depositions have been signed as aforesaid, the justice, unless he discharges the accused, shall ask him whether he wishes the depositions to be read again… Here is where things began to go terribly wrong: Up until these new
statutes it
was not illegal for these Justices to have an illegible scrawl or
scribble for a record of proceedings. After these proclamations it was
unlawful for the Justice to produce an illegible record of proceedings.
The record of proceedings was to be in legible writing on one side only
of a piece of paper. Many of these Justices resented the imposition of
these new requirements and many attempts were made to impose the civil
rules of those courts to illegally inflict the court costs onto the
accused. The Justice was required to pay a clerk or stenographer from
his own budget to make the legible record on one side only of a piece
of paper , or write it all himself.
There has always existed a fundamental difference between the civil law of the provinces and the criminal Law of Canada. In the civil courts the parties are there by consent and there are no penal sanctions for those who refuse their consent. The procedures in those courts are subject to common law procedures as modified by provincial legislations. The Criminal courts, on the other hand, operate by compulsion with penal sanctions and are not between equal parties. These fundamental distinctions has led parliament to promulgate distinct procedures for the criminal law. One of the most fundament differences between the civil and the criminal is exemplified by the proclamation in the 1892 Criminal Code. Under the civil law, the court is not required to make the record of proceedings and the parties must pay the stenographers or court services to make the transcripts of the proceedings. However, under the criminal statutes, the Justice is required to have a record of the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution kept in the custody of an officer of the court and the accused is entitled to take copies for a reasonable fee. 97.
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
Here is where the criminal conspiracies begin to propagate: Because the 1892
s. 590 did
not explicitly state that the depositions and and transcripts were
interchangable for the purposes of s. 97, these Justices
attempted to impose the civil rules of court to inflict their court
costs onto the accused. They tried to interpret this small seeming
inconsistancy to mean that parliament had propagated new law to allow
these justices to impose civil rules to inflict their court costs onto
the accused.
Some of these Justices refused to pay their stenographers to make the transcript and insisted that the accused must pay the steographer to make the original transcript, if he wished to have copies of the transcript. The frailties and schizophrenic nonsense of these attempts is Ludicrous 1. If the
accused refused
to submit to this fraud and extortion, then there is no signed
transcript, and no evidence for the trial court .
2.If the accused refused to submit to this same fraud and extortion by the trial court, then, again, there is no signed transcript and ,therefore, no evidence to uphold a conviction 3.If the trial court imposes a conviction without the signed transcript, then it has crossed the line into criminal land. It has become a BIZZARO COURT with no lawful jurisdiction to make a conviction. The
"Interpretations Act" makes it very clear that any such actions of
Justices was illegal
The Interpretations Act of that time made it plain that the introduction of stenographers made only one fundamental change to the statutes of 1869; that the transcript need not be signed by the witnesses but must be signed by the Justice and must be in legible writing on one side only of a piece of paper. Without the signature of the Justice, there is no record of proceeding, and therefore no jurisdiction. s.19.
Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not
an excuse for committing that offence R.S., c.
C-34, s. 19.
In that statement
lies the inescapable
implication that the law is intelligible and unambiguous and
is
not unapprehendable by a person. S. 19 is a fiction
maintained by
the Criminal Justice Systems of Canada to maintain jurisdiction in it's
courts, similiar to the fiction of the reasonable man but
with one huge difference. The reasonable
man
is not required to be aware of the letter of the law or even the
existence of a law, whereas the person referred to in s. 19
is
required to be aware of any law published in the Canada Gazette, and to
be aware of any contravention thereof.
126.
Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of
Parliament by willfully doing an act that it forbids or willfully
omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a
punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Section 19 and
Section 126 make it very
clear that Judges and Lawyers are not exempt from these provisions.
Knowing the law is their job description, and administering that law
independently and impartially is the Mandatory job description of
Judges. As officers of those Courts, lawyers are also liable as
accessories to any willful omissions of Judges in their
courts.
It has been the Mandatory Administative duty
of the Judges of the Courts
of Record of British Columbia to make the Record of Proceedings
in Legible Writing on
one side only of a piece of paper since at least 1869.
The
preceding statutes from 1869
and 1892 clearly establish, that it is a mandatory function of the
Justice to make the record of the evidence, of the witnesses for the
prosecution, whether by deposition or transcript, and that
this
legible record is to be verified to the accused before he is asked to
call evidence. The
provisions of s. 591 of 1892 Criminal Code that the legible
record on one side only of a piece of paper, of the evidence
of
the witnesses for the prosecution, be verified to the
accused before he enters on his defense, and the provisions
of.
597 of 1892 Criminal Code for the accused to have copies of the records
for a reasonable fee, are incorporated in s.
603 of
the present Criminal Code. Again
the provisions of The Interpretations Act make plain that the plain
meaning of s. 29 and s. 31 of 1869 and s. 590, s.
591, and
s. 597 of the 1892 Criminal Code of Canada are still speaking through
s. 540. (6) and s. 603 of the present Criminal Code of Canada:
..
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.
s.540.
(1) where an accused is before a justice holding a
preliminary inquiry, the
justice shall
(a) take the evidence under oath, in the presence of the accused, of the witnesses called on the part of the prosecution and allow the accused or his counsel to cross-examine them; and (b) cause a record of the evidence of each witness to be taken (i) in a province where a sound recording apparatus is authorized by or under provincial legislation for use in civil cases, by the type of apparatus so authorized… (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… 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, … (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
There is nothing
ambiguous or puzzling about our rights under the criminal statutes of
Canada; they have said the same thing in plain language for the entire
history of our country. So why have these Justices been able to get
away with violating these rights while they commit criminal acts
according to s. 126 of the Criminal Code? Their criminal success is
entirely to do with the criminal conspiracy by these Justices and the
Attorney Generals of BC and Canada and the Attorneys of BC.
Click here to see the excerpts from the present case before the court of Appeal of BC;; the names of the current appellant and court personel involved have been altered as well as court numbers etc. All references to my previous cases and court personel are fully named. The page shows the CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY AGBC |
