Conspiracy

This is the affidavit of DAVID ALEXANDER PARSONS, As to the direction of the CHAMBERS JUDGE on MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1998 at 9:30 AM at 890 BURDETTE ST. VICTORIA B.C. in the court of appeal.

I hereby state that the facts and matters referred to in this affidavit are true and factual to the best of my knowledge.

1. I begin with the matter of the Appeal on V03126, which was filed on OCT 2, 1997. A motion was subsequently made to JUSTICE PROUDFOOT on Oct 14, 1997 in the court of Appeal B.C. for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the provincial court from proceeding on a trial without proper rules of court on which I might conduct my defence. JUSTICE PROUDFOOT adjourned my application on the grounds that it was premature and that it would have to be heard and ruled on by the trial Judge. At this hearing I stated to the court that the provincial court had no Jurisdiction to try me without my consent and that I demanded they make lawful and properly constitutional rules that I may proceed on.

2. On Oct 23, 1997, JUDGE PALMER and PETER FIRESTONE “ELECTED(???)” to proceed on an illegal trial despite the statutory evidence that they had no authority or Jurisdiction to do so.

Before 1972, “OBSTRUCTING A PEACE OFFICER...” was within the absolute Jurisdiction of a MAGISTRATE and was defined in a seperate C.C. section as an indictable offence. In 1972 Parliament repealed the subsection which placed that offence under the absolute Jurisdiction of magistrate.

This repeal followed the 1971 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Smythe in which it was determined

“...if an authority such as the Attorney General can have the right to decide whether or not a person shall be prosecuted, he may, if authorized by statute, have the right to decide what form the prosecution shall take...”

3. There is clearly no statutory authority for a provincial court Judge to force an accused to participate in an “illegal trial”. The actions of Judge Palmer were clearly illegal and his further refusal to allow me my right to elect my method of trial as guaranteed by S. 536 C.C. places him in violation of S. 126 C.C. not only in relation to S. 536.2 but in relation to S. 15 of the Charter.

4. Judge Palmer and Judge Ehrcke have both committed further criminal acts against me and the Justice system in denying me an order under S. 530 of the Criminal Code.

On Sept. 30, 1996 Judge Ehrcke denied my application for an order under section 530 for my language at trial. Her reasons for dismissal were that S. 530 only applied to the French language and only Frenchmen in English Canada could apply for and be granted such an order. Her further reasons were that I was trying to obtain free transcripts of my trial and that my application was somehow improper. Her dismissal on these fictional grounds is highly illegal and constitutes a CRIMINAL ACT against me and against the Justice System.

5. The 1892 Criminal Code states that the Judge or Justice shall make a record of the evidence of the witnesses and it shall be in legible writing on one side only of a piece of paper and shall be kept with the other evidence.

...the Judge or Justice shall make a record of the evidence of the witnesses and it shall be in legible writing and on one side only of a piece of paper and shall be kept with other evidence.

6. It has always been the law in Canada that the Record of Proceedings shall include a legible record in writing to be made by the Judge or Justice in any proceedings.

7. The Judge and Justices of the Courts of B.C. have been refusing to make the transcripts of the proceedings that they are required by law to produce.

There is no statute or rule or regulation which exempts any Judge or Justice from the mandatory requirement of the law.

The Judges and Justices of the criminal courts of B.C. have been engaged in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the law and to exert an improper and illegal control over the appeal process in B.C. by concealing the evidence of the proceedings and forcing their victims to great expense in said victims’ pursuit of justice on appeal.

The argument that legal aid somehow Justifies this Criminal Conspiracy is demonstration of the SCHIZOPHRENIC NONSENSE that has replaced JUDICIAL REASON in B.C.

It is immaterial which Judges initiated these criminal acts and whether the Judges who followed them were aware of the criminal nature of those acts.

126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament, by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully 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.

8. On the 14 Jan, 1997 I applied to Judge Ehrcke for an order under Section 530 C.C. for my language at trial for a related charge 05192-A from the initial charge 05192.

530.(1) On application by an accused whose language is one of the official languages of Canada, made not later than...

a justice of the peace or provincial court judge shall grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a justice of the peace, provincial court judge, judge or judge and jury, as the case may be, who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused...

“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 what perhaps cannot be achieved directly, except under the legal aid program or other similar programs, and that is to obtain a transcript without charge. I therefore deny the application, sir.”

S. 530 is a back door created by Parliament to allow the Judges of B.C. to escape from the criminal conspiracy in which they have been trapped by following the illegal and criminal actions of the OLD PIGS OF THE LAW who have insisted that the law issues from their CAKEHOLE and not from the mouths of Parliament.

The Judges of the Courts of B.C. are bound by the mandatory provisions of S. 530. Parliament could not confront these Judges directly with the threat of CRIMINAL SANCTIONS in their contravention of S. 540 to produce transcripts because the exposing of this criminal Conspiracy would bring the administration if Justice into disrepute. So instead Parliament took it out of the hands of the Judges and placed it in the hands of the accused.

530 (1) On application by an accused... a justice of the peace or provincial court judge shall grant an order directing...

530.1 Where an order is granted under section 530...

(g) the record of proceedings during the preliminary inquiry or trial shall include

(i) a transcript of everything that was said during those proceedings in the official language in which it was said,

The action of Judge Ehrcke on 14 Jan, 1997 in implying qualifications to an unambiguous and mandatory section of the criminal law of my country and thereby dismissing the application on those fictional grounds, demonstrates the deterioration of these courts to proclaim CAKEHOLE LAW in place of the law of my country.

The determination of these courts to deny the criminal nature of their unlawful refusal to produce a legible record of the evidence has produced a SCHIZOPHRENIC state of affairs where the entire criminal justice system of B.C. is dependant on the camouflage of LEGAL AID to keep their improper system from being exposed for the CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY it is.

9. S. 530 and S. 530.1 were proclaimed in the Canadian Criminal Code in 1992 and since then the Courts of B.C. have been unlawfully trying and convicting Canadian native people in those courts.

S.530 (2) On application by an accused whose language is not one of the official languages of Canada, made not later than whichever of the times referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) is applicable, a justice of the peace or provincial Court Judge may grant an order...

The above subsection is unconstitutional in that a Frenchman or an Englishman has a legal right under S. 530 (1) whereas an Indian or any other non-French and non-English speaking person would be at the mercy of the discretion of the Judge. However, S. 530 (3) states that the Judge, etc., before whom an accused first appears, if the accused is unrepresented then the Judge, etc. shall advise the accused of his right to apply for an order under S. 530 (1) or S.530 (2). An accused should dispense with a lawyer at his first appearance to insure that he receives the full benefit of the law.

10. I refer this court to the constitutional challenge of DAVID ALEXANDER PARSONS C.A. NO. V02841 in which Rule 7 of the Criminal Appeal Rules, 1986 of this court which requires an appellant to supply to this court 4 copies of the transcript of the proceedings was questioned as being unconstitutional.

I would go further and suggest that Rule 7 in conjunction with Section 10 (1)(e) Court of Appeals SBC Chapter 7, appellant may have his appeal dismissed because he did not comply with Rule 7 is part of the same criminal conspiracy to exert an improper control of the appeal process by the Court of Appeal itself.

It is an undeniable fact that an impecunious appellant who cannot buy the evidence of his trial from a “Private Source???” and who cannot inspect a transcript to determine and refer to the Court of Appeal, the grounds for appeal, this appellant may have his appeal arbitrarily dismissed by these illegal rules of Court.

11. There is no statute in Canada to support Rule 7 of the rules of Court of Appeal of B.C.

S. 482 C.C. states that courts may make rules of court, not inconsistent with this Act or any other Act of Parliament.

The rules of court cannot be made up out of thin air; they must have their roots in statute law and cannot conflict with the legal and constitutional rights of the individuals before the Criminal Courts.

12. The combination of the Provincial and Supreme courts in refusing to make the transcripts upon which an accused or appellant can prepare for his appeal by inspecting them under S. 603 C.C. in order to determine to the court of Appeal where lie the grounds of appeal and the insistence of the Court of Appeal that they have the right to dismiss an appeal because a poor an indigent accused or appellant cannot comply with a clearly improper and unconstitutional rule; these factors combine to indicate a compliance by this court with the criminal acts of the lower courts. I refer this court to the reasons for Judgement COURT OF APPEAL NO. V02841 BCSC NO. 86309.

13. Finally I come to Attorney General of B.C. (past and present). The criminal acts of the Judges of B.C. cannot have been unnoticed by the A.G. Being a Party to every Criminal Appeal in B.C. the A.G. cannot claim that he was also not a party to the dismissals of Appeals by the court of Appeal. The refusal to produce a transcript by a Judge is a criminal act and to further deprive an appellant of an appeal relative to that criminal act by the Court of Appeal creates an injustice which brings the administration of the law into disrepute by the Court of Appeal. The A.G. clearly has the authority to impose criminal sanctions against those who mis-administer the laws of Canada and it is clearly within his powers to compel those Judges to comply with the law.

The refusal of the Criminal Courts of B.C. to produce transcripts and the refusal to grant S. 530 applications and in conjunction with the existence and enforcement of Rule 7 of the Court of Appeal and the neglect of the A.G. of B.C. to enforce the law against the Judges of the Courts of B.C. combine to produce a situation which cannot be described as anything less than a total Criminal Conspiracy to exert a concerted effort by the majority of the Judges of the Courts of B.C. and the A.G. to subvert the law of Canada and exercise an improper and illegal control of the Appeal Process.

14. I have refrained from pursuing Criminal Charges against Judge Ehrcke and Judge Palmer to allow this Court to remove them from jeopardy.

I have the legal right under the laws of Canada to indict and prosecute those who commit Criminal Acts against me or against the laws of Canada.

I have the further right under S. 24 of the Charter to prosecute anyone who infringes or denies my rights under that Charter. I refer this court to Section 126 C.C.

126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act
of Parliament, by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by
wilfully 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.

The Charter is an Act of Parliament and as the ULTIMATE LAW OF
CANADA clearly confers an exclusive right to apply to a court of
competent Jurisdiction for a remedy. Section 126. of the CANADIAN
CRIMINAL CODE is a remedy. The Attorney General’s authority under
the Criminal Code to stay charges is clearly subordinate to mine
or anyone else’s exclusive right to apply to a court for a remedy
and the Jurisdiction conferred to that court by S. 24 of said
Charter clearly excludes any interference to that application by
the A.G.

15. I contend that it is time for the courts of B.C. to redefine
themselves and to abandon CAKEHOLE LAW.

As to the OLD PIGS OF THE LAW; you have your CAKEHOLE confused
with another part of your anatomy and all that’s issuing from
there is a bad smell.

16. On Mon. 19 Jan 1997 9:30 A.M. at 850 Burdette Ave. Victoria
B.C. a proper Constitutional Challenge was brought before a Court
of Appeal chambers Judge on file V03126. The application was
dismissed on the grounds that this Judge lacked Jurisdiction to
hear it. In this constitutional Question a writ of Prohibition
was requested to Prohibit the provincial Court from conducting an
illegal trial (PAR. 8, PAR. 9, PAR. 20).

COURT OF APPEAL
SBC CHP. 7
INDEX CHAP. 74.1
10. (2) In an appeal or other matter a justice may
(a) make an order incidental to the appeal or matter...
(b) make an interim order to prevent prejudice to any person

This Justice clearly had authority to grant an interim writ of
Prohibition to prevent prejudice and he clearly indicated that
the Jurisdiction of the provincial Court in this matter was
questionable.

17. I regard the forcible acquittal by Judge Palmer in the face
of my refusal to make any defence and my refusal to proceed in a
trial which I had condemned as illegal to be attributable to an
unintentional blackmail, as my intentions to expose the criminal
acts and the criminal conspiracy of the Judges of the courts of
B.C. on appeal of any conviction was readily apparent to the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of B.C.

In that statement lies the inescapable implication that the law
is Intelligible and Unambiguous and is not hidden or not
unapprehendable by a person. It appears that the Judges of B.C.
have a serious problem understanding the word SHALL in relation
to the MANDATORY RIGHTS of those before their courts. The
Interpretation Act of Canada I 21 states “May is permissive...
Shall is imperative”. The word shall in S. 540 and in S. 530 is a
command from Parliament to the Justice of the Peace or Judge to
perform an administrative function. If that Judge, Justice, etc.
refuses to carry out that function, he has lost Jurisdiction over
any individual before his court to which that function applies
and may be further in violation of that person’s Constitutional
rights.

Section 530 (1) states in no uncertain terms that the Judge, etc.
is commanded to perform a specific administrative function
involving the legal and constitutional rights of the person
before their courts.

It is no coincidence that S. 530 was worded and placed in a
position where it is not in conflict with any act of Parliament
and has deep roots in our Constitution. It may not be interpreted
or altered by Judges without creating a mischief in the Courts
and activating S. 24 of the Charter.

Section 530 (3) states in no uncertain terms that the Judge, etc.
is commanded to perform a specific administrative function
involving the legal and constitutional rights of an individual
before his court, specifically, that he shall advise the accused
of his right to apply for an order under S. 530 (1) or S.530 (2).
Since 1992 the trial and/or conviction in B.C. of any individual
who has not been advised by the Judge or any legal representative
of his right to an order under Section 530 has been illegal

(2) If his legal representative did not advise him of his S. 530
rights and/or neglected to apply for such an order; Ground for
Appeal that he was not properly represented.

Again I state I have refrained from pursuing criminal charges
against Judge Ehrcke and Judge Palmer in the expectation that
this court will remove them from jeopardy.

19. I refer the court to the appeal V03001 decided before this
court Feb 4, 1998. Justice Newberry and the other Judges
misdirected themselves as to the matter before them. The appeal
was and is about a writ of Mandamus to compel Judge Ehrcke to
reverse her dismissal of my application for an order under S. 530
C.C.

In the submission dated June 19, 1997 of DAVID ALEXANDER PARSONS
as per the instructions of Justice Hollinrake of the Court of
Appeal that DAVID ALEXANDER PARSONS be exempted from transcript
and factum requirements and that he only be required to make a
submission of 30 pages or less.

In paragraph 13 I stated in no uncertain terms that I was seeking
a writ of Mandamus to compel Judge Ehrcke to reverse her
dismissal of my S. 530 applications. I assume that the
self-deception of those three Judges was due not to criminal
arrogance but to a pathetic attempt to avoid having to deal with
the criminal actions of Judge Ehrcke which would lead to the
further exposure of the Criminal Conspiracy that I have detailed
in these pages. The further Judgement that I had not complied
with Rule 4 of the Rules of Court of the Supreme Court and had
therefore not given proper notice to the A.G., I draw this
court’s attention to an enclosed memo from Kathy Sainty Law
Officer (BCSC) Jan 9, 1998 in which it is stated that the rules
of Court of the Supreme Court had not been published or
distributed to the public and referred to a notice from the chief
Justice enclosed which stated that the above rules came into
force on Dec 1, 1997. Rule 4 was not in effect when I gave notice
and was not available at the Court Registry until spring 1998.

Those three Judges misdirected themselves again in a most
Grievous manner. It is stated in the memo and notice of the chief
Justice Bryan Williams that this notice was being distributed to
the members of the bar. It follows ineluctably that Newberry and
the other Judges were aware that the new rules had come into
effect long after I had lawfully initiated proceedings. I regard
her Judgement on that issue as either Judicial incompetence or
another disgusting display of CAKE HOLE LAW. Her further
Judgement that “the trial must go to it’s completion and a
conviction be entered...” is a grievous display of CRIMINAL
ARROGANCE and the ultimate declaration of CAKE HOLE LAW. That
statement counsels an inferior court to commit an indictable
offence.

S. 22 C.C. states that anyone who counsels another to be a party
to an offence is a party to that offence. Newberry and the other
two Judges are a party to the CRIMINAL ACTS of Judge Palmer and
other Judges who have followed her counsel.

20. Should Newberry or the other two Judges attempt to hear any
other motions or appeals by me I will immediately lay CRIMINAL
CHARGES against them.

I have refrained from pursuing criminal sanctions against
Newberry and the other two Judges in the expectation that this
court will remove them from Jeopardy by a DECLARATION OF MY
RIGHTS.

This affidavit is accompanied by an application for a writ of
Mandamus to compel Judge Ehrcke or any other Judge of the
Provincial Court of B.C. to grant an Order under S. 530 C.C.

This affidavit is also accompanied by an application for a writ
of Mandamus to compel Judge Palmer or any other Judge of the
Provincial Court of B.C. to conduct a hearing under S. 536 C.C.
at which I may ELECT my method of trial on FILE 05192 COLWOOD
B.C.

Further a writ of Mandamus to compel Justice of the Peace Phalen
who presided at the hearing on FILE 92279 VICTORIA REGISTRY RE
this FILE V03156 for reasons as stated next.

21. On April 29, 1997 at Victoria B.C. information 92279 was
sworn and on or about May 21, 1997 a hearing before J.P. Phalen
was conducted at which copies of certain documents were presented
to J.P. Phalen by myself. Those documents were copies of Court
Records presented in support of the criminal charge against Judge
Higinbotham. These same documents had been read to J.P. Fisher in
a previous hearing on a related charge 91260 which the A.G. had
stayed.

On June 24, 1997 I presented a letter to manager court services
requesting to inspect and verify the transcripts and reasons for
Judgement on the related charge on Higinbothom 91260 and one of
the other matters before this court V0304 (FILE 89050). In that
letter I made the production of Transcripts by the Justice of the
Peace MANDATORY and quoted the S. 126 C.C. that made
non-compliance an indictable offence.

On May 23, 1997 I had also presented a letter requesting the same
matters on the single file (89050) and had presented on a
seperate paper the same statutes mandating the production of
transcripts.

As I received no response to my letters and the court staff had
refused to produce to me the rules for the governing, keeping,
verification, and inspection of transcripts I presented a letter
dated Sep. 8, 1997 to J.P. Phalen, wherein I again stated to him
that his actions were illegal and that I was requesting under
authority of S. 540 (revised 1997) that the proceedings of 91260
be transcribed and placed in the record of Proceedings for my
inspection and verification.

I also requested that the rules of court governing these matters
be produced to me or I be directed to the repository containing
them.

Some time between Sep. 8, 1997 and Sep. 26, 1997 I confronted
J.P. Phalen at the court registry in Victoria about these
matters. Phalen refused to give me any written or oral response
to my requests and indicated he would make no future response.

22. Sometime between the confrontation with Phalen around
September 26, 1997 I attended the courthouse to inspect the file
92279 and file 91260 and was refused access by a J.P. At that
time the A.G. had not intervened and I was the de facto
prosecutor on file 92279. I demanded that the J.P.’s or the Miss?
Power who attended the J.P.’s produce a transcript containing the
reasons for Judgement or produce to me the Statute, Rule, or
Regulation which would exempt them from doing so. I also demanded
the rules of court governing the keeping, verification, and
inspection of transcripts in relation to S. 482 C.C. as to the
MANDATORY requirements of S. 540 that the J.P. make a legible
record of the evidence of the witnesses. (THE PROSECUTOR IS A
COMPETENT WITNESS)

Miss? Power stated that they had authority to refuse to produce
the reasons for Judgement and to refuse to produce a transcript.
She quoted some drivel and when I challenged her to produce this
written drivel she was unable. As the de facto prosecutor I have
all the power of a prosecutor to charge individuals with
obstruction of Justice and to initiate any proceedings relative
to performance of such duties.

33. (2) where power is given to a Person, officer or functionary
to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers
as are necessary to enable the Person, officer or functionary to
do or enforce the doing of the act or thing are deemed to be also
given.

23. I informed Miss? Power that if she did not cease OBSTRUCTING
ME I would charge her with OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. When I attempted
to make out the Information charging obstruction by Power a
deputy sheriff named McMaster assaulted me in the hallway,
stating that I would not be allowed to make out that charge. He
then forced me out of the building. I left the building and
proceeded to call some people to ask them to come to the
Courthouse and be witnesses when I returned to the courthouse to
file OBSTRUCTION Charges against Power and assault charges
against McMaster.

When I returned to the courthouse I filed charges against Power
and McMaster with no trouble from anyone.

Since then no one has denied me access to any file or document to
which I am legally entitled access.

24. I refer this court to the front cover of file 92279:
“Documents on File but not Marked as Exhibits Destroyed”

Not only is Phalen in violation of S. 126 C.C. in relation to
contravening S. 540 C.C.; he or someone delegated authority by
him are OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE by destroying the evidence presented
to Phalen by the official prosecutor.

25. I refer this court to a letter dated Jul. 22, 1998 to Peter
Holmes J.P. in which I requested that he verify an incident
between J.P. Phalen and myself and the reply by J.P. Holmes dated
Aug. 4, 1998. I would point out to the court that J.P. Holmes
produced an “Excerpt from Proceedings on the last matter before
this Court R. v. Ratel V03000 FILE 88125 VICTORIA”

The production of the DECISION or reason for Judgement of J.P.
Holmes fulfills the requirements of Chap. 111 7th William IV.
A.D. 1837:

...All courts of appeal or courts of error in this province, into
which the judgements of the said courts or any of them, shall be
carried by appeal or by any writ of error...

26. The Supreme court of B.C. in every action I have brought and
the Court of Appeal in every appeal I have brought has produced
the DECISION or REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT that they are required by
law to do as a court of Record.

A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE hearing a complaint and taking evidence
under the provisions of S. 540 as all courts in B.C. are required
to do is as bound to produce the DECISION or REASONS FOR
JUDGEMENT as any other judiciary.

The refusal by J.P. Phalen and J.P. Speed to produce the DECISION
or REASONS FOR JUDGMENT is another disgusting example of CAKEHOLE
LAW where a Judiciary is claiming that the law issues from his
CAKEHOLE and that the conflicting LAW of Canada is irrelevant and
annoying and that any one who confronts them with it is either
insane or criminal or both.

27. The refusal of Phalen to comply with the MANDATORY
provisions of the Criminal Code has denied me my right to have
the record of Proceedings contain the evidence necessary for this
court to properly consider this matter.

I contend that I have done everything possible to bring to this
court that evidence and that the lack thereof is due to the
OBSTRUCTION of Court Personnel and to dismiss this appeal on the
grounds that it was not diligently pursued would be an injustice.

For the above reasons I request this court for a writ of Mandamus
directed to J.P. W. Phalen to produce the record of Proceedings
or appear before this court to explain his actions in not doing
so and further to explain his actions in destroying or allowing
to be destroyed, the evidence presented to him.

Further, I request a writ of Mandamus to compel J.P. Speed to
produce the record of Proceedings to this court on FILE 89050
C.A. V03034.

I state to this court to the best of my recollection, the REASONS
FOR JUDGEMENT of J.P. Speed. Just before giving his reasons Speed
summoned the police officers, who I had subpoena’d to that court
to testify, back into the court room and stated his Reasons for
Judgement before them:

“Constable Shotton RCMP was in uniform and in the company of
other officers therefore he did not commit any crime”

This was the CAKEHOLE LAW of J.P. Speed in answer to the evidence
that Shotton was unlawfully in my dwelling and had in fact break
and entered my dwelling without lawful excuse. This display of
Criminal arrogance goes beyond the mere utterance of CAKEHOLE
LAW, it is an unmistakeable invitation to the police to commit
criminal acts in the knowledge that J.P. Speed will refuse to
allow their victims to seek Justice in his court.

This sort of mentality belongs in Nazi Germany or some other
fascist regime. His statement is an insult to the people of
Canada and to the world and most grievously to the very legal
system that employs him. I can understand his reluctance to
produce his reasons for Judgement; I doubt if he or any of the
others expected that I would ever get this far; I have one more
step to take on this Journey to obtain Justice; Hopefully this
court will make that last step unnecessary.

28. I would point out to this court that the charge against
Benjamin Shotton has an included charge that may be found under
S. 126 C.C. in relation to S. 8 of the Charter:

The stay by the Attorney General of 349. (1) C.C. will
automatically activate the S. 126 C.C. [S. 8 Charter] in that S.
24 of the Charter gives me or any other individual whose Charter
rights have been infringed on or denied the exclusive right to
apply for a remedy and the exclusive nature of S. 24 precludes
action by the Attorney General and bestows a further Jurisdiction
on a court of Competent Jurisdiction to exclude the staying by
the A.G. of any further charges that that court determines.

S. 24 of the Charter provides a perfect balance against the
awesome POLICE STATE POWER of the A.G. to stay the charges of a
private prosecutor against an Agent of the A.G. or any other
individual who has committed any offence against such Prosecutor.
Under S. 24 of the Charter if an offence such as Breaking and
Entering or Being Unlawfully in a Dwelling By the Police is
stayed by the A.G., then he is excluded from further stays of
CHARTER OFFENCES and further CRIMINAL CODE CHARGES FOUND BY A
COURT under a S. 24 application by the informant or private
prosecutor.

The Charter has three sections specifically aimed at those who
are authorized by law to take direct physical action against the
person or property of another individual and specifically forbids
certain actions.

S.8 Forbids those who are authorised to search or seize from
doing so arbitrarily

S.9 forbids anyone who is authorized to detain or imprison, from
doing so arbitrarily.

S.12 Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and
unusual treatment or punishment.

S.12 forbids anyone who is authorized to punish another
individual or any other treatment by law, from performing a cruel
or unusual treatment or punishment.

As such the three sections fall under S. 126 of the Criminal Code
and an application under S. 24 of the Charter allows a private
prosecutor to pursue criminal sanctions against those who commit
Charter Offences against said prosecutor without interference by
the A.G.

I hereby apply to this court under S. 24 of the Charter for a
remedy under S. 126 C.C. in relation to the Contravention of S. 8
of the Charter, of my right to be free from arbitrary search and
seizure. This application to be for FILE 89050 C.A. 03034.

I would further point out to this court that the infamous
notwithstanding Section 33 of the Charter has been misinterpreted
by these courts and these Politicians as conferring absolute
Police State power on a legislative assembly. In reality S. 33 is
exactly balanced by the Powers conferred by S. 24 in which an
individual may apply to the Courts, including the criminal courts
for a remedy. The application is exclusive and all other law is
subordinate to it.

S. 24 also confers an extended Jurisdiction on a court of
competent Jurisdiction to allow criminal Prosecutions against any
individuals including the A.G.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this
Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court
considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

The more power the State assumes under S. 33 the more power is
conferred on the individuals and the Judges to defend our
Constitutional rights under S. 24.

29. In the last matter before this court, v03000 file
88125, Justice of the peace HOLMES states in the DECISION in the
EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS produced by him as the minimun
requirement of the law,at page 1 line 19 to 22

...Mr. Parsons, the informant, has described the actions of
Mr. Ratel with regard to the charges at hand, and these charges are
somewhat supported by the three jury members...

...he may come under some criticism for his presentation of
the exhibit but i do not see that it is a charge against Mr.Ratel

In the evidence presented at that hearing, there was no evidence
that Mr. Ratel was making any presentation to the jury nor had
requested any permission from the court or anyone else to point a
gun at the members of the jury and further there was testimony
from myself and three members of the jury that he was pointing
the gun carelessly at members of the jury.

It is my contention that my conviction in that court was due to
the influence and effect on that jury of Ratel's improper and
illegal act. Further there is a legal question that must be
answered.

30. Was Ratel actually unaware that he was carrying a firearm in
a careless manner or was it a deliberate and staged event. If it
was, as I suggest, a willful act, then is that not evidence of the
MENS REA of this offense.

Ratel, as the crown prosecutor, is the PERSONA of the ATTORNEY
GENERAL in that courtroom and as an officer of the court comes
under the authority of that and this court.

I will not bore this court with the many judicial decisions
describing and defining a firearm except to state that a firearm
with a trigger lock or a firearm with a wire through the barrel
is still a firearm, although I would argue that a firearm with a
wire through the barrel is less secure than one with a trigger
lock, as it may be made functual within a matter of seconds by
anyone

31. I refer this court to the sentence appeal that was granted
before the conviction appeal V02841 B.C.C.A. wherein the sentence
of Judge Hutchison against myself was overturned due to his
misdirection of the jury

I contend that without the improper acts of Ratel and Hutchison
there would be no conviction. Further I state that there was
concrete evidence of perjury by the prime witness for the crown
Gunther Mielke of the RCMP.

I refer this court to the statement of Mr. Mulligan CROWN
COUNSEL VICTORIA to JUSTICE MADAM Ryan
B.C.C.A. in chambers that one of the witnesses, an R.C.M.P.
officer, had committed perjury during the preliminary hearing
and trial. I find it very hard to believe that the prosecutor at a
trial would be unaware of the blatant perjury of his prime
witness and that he would not take legal action against that
perjuror or that hutchison would not counsel the jury as to the
credibility of that perjuror. These people are trained to notice
such things.

32. The A.G. has stayed these charges as he has stayed all other
charges that I have brought against those who have committed
criminal acts against me. the A.G. and the J.P.'s and various
Judges before Me have demonstrated their determination that I or
any other individual will not prevail in our pursuit of criminal
sanctions against those who have misused the law against us.

There exist ancient and venerable statutes in canada that grant
and empower the citizens of canada to prosecute those who mis-
administer the law or commit criminal acts pursuant to the
pursuit of the criminal law. These laws are known to the judges
of B.C. and to the attorney general and have been long suppressed
and concealed from we the people. It has always been the law in
Canada that We the citizens may prosecute anyone including
police, justices of the peace, judges, or anyone else who commits
criminal acts against us.

AS the persona of the A.G. Ratel committed a criminal act which I
contend, improperly influenced a jury. This raises a serious
question; does the stay against Ratel amount to the A.G. staying
the charges against himself and DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE
A.G. CAN COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS TO ACHIEVE
CONVICTIONS AND THEN OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY
STAYING ANY CHARGES THAT HIS VICTIMS BRING
AGAINST HIM I contend that my rights under S.11.(d) of the
charter of rights have been infringed;that the actions of Ratel and
the A.G. have tainted,"the fair and impartial tribunal", guaranteed
to me by the charter and that the staying of the charges is an
attempt to obstruct justice and further is an infringement on my
right to apply to a court under S.24 of the charter

33. I have one other right which all other individuals of any
free and democratic state share with me.You won't find this right
in any book but it has been the stuff that fuels revolutions.We
the citizens have the right to look up to those we allow to
govern us, with respect and reverence, and to be able to
sanction those who betray that trust. I did not vote for you; I
have no say in whom is appointed to your courts; You are entrused
with the law of my country and yet you allow no democratic way
for we the citizens to sanction those of you who betray your
office.

WILLIAM THE JUST and other great men like him forged laws to
protect the common people from the criminals who invariably worm
themselves into the legal system and as non-elected judges are
able to degrade the law into schizophrenic nonsense where only
their cakehole law is allowed to prevail.

The judges of B.C. have hijacked the law of my country and are
imposing cakehole law in it's place. The law of my country does
not belong to those judges; It belongs to me and all the other
citizens of canada. It was written for me by my elected members
of parliament ( past and present ). It was written in the
language I understand and in the grammer and syntax I learned in
school and in society and it means what it says. I give notice
that I am taking back my law and I demand that the judges of B.C.
obey the law of my country.

I exist somewhere near the bottom of the social ladder but
respect ain't something I give away free and it ain't something
you can steal from me. AS mean as my life is, it disgusts me to
have to look down on judges wallowing around in a sewer of common
criminality. I know there are honest judges who don't agree with
CAKEHOLE LAW and I think it's time they stood on their hind legs
and did something about it.

THEY ARE FEEDING AT THE TROUGH OF LEGAL AID
When a conviction is entered against an poor and ignorant
defendant, the judicial system immediately gears up for a war of
attrition against the poor S.O.B. should he attempt to appeal. The
judges who have convicted such people refuse to make the record
of proceedings and thereby conceal the evidence necessary to
establish the grounds for appeal.

IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE LEGAL AID SYSTEM THAT THEY WILL
NOT FUND ANY APPEAL WHERE A SENTENCE DOES NOT INVOLVE JAIL TIME

For those who have wondered why those judges have been handing
out such lenient sentences; suspended sentences, probation, etc.
the answer lies here. Those judges have been slowly building a history
of case law on the carcasses of the poor and ignorant; a disgusting
attack on a very vulnerable minority, who are unable to defend
themselves against this JUGGERNAUGHT OF THE LAW. Those
judges are now claiming that their victories over those who were
unable to defend themselves against the criminal acts committed
against them by those judges is a proclamation of the supremacy of
CAKEHOLE LAW over STATUTE LAW. If a poor and ignorant
appellant can prove absolutely that he has grounds for appeal, he
immediately has a lawyer forced on him, and then that lawyer is
awarded the record of proceedings that has been concealed from
the appellant. This is a disgusting shell-game where the judges
have stolen the rights of the defendant or appellant and awarded
them to an officer of the court.

NOWHERE IN THE CRIMINAL CODE DOES IT STATE THAT ANYONE MAY ASSUME
ANYONE ELSE'S LEGAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

another aspect of this shell-game is where the judge refuses to
allow a defendant his legal and constitutional rights during a
trial and then acquits that defendant thereby setting a precedent
that other judges may follow. Legal aid lawyers have no incentive
to pursue such illegal acts by judges after the legal aid money
runs out and the acquitted defendant whether he is represented or
not is denied any appeal on those criminal acts by that judge.

R. V. DAVID ALEXANDER PARSONS COLWOOD B.C. acquitted by
provincial court judge palmer file 05192

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE THE CITIZENS PURSUE CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS AGAINST THOSE IN THE JUDIARY WHO VIOLATE THEIR OFFICE

35. THE LAWYERS OF B.C. ARE MEMBERS OF THE LAW SOCIETY
THE JUDGES RUN THE LAW SOCIETY
THE LAWYERS DO WHAT THE JUDGES TELL THEM
THE BULK OF THE VICTORIES OF THOSE JUDGES ARE FROM LEGAL
AID CASES AND WHEN THE MONEY RUNS OUT, SO DO THE LAWYERS AND THE
APPELLANT IS LEFT FACING THE JUGGERNAUGHT ALONE

The criminal lawyers of B.C. have no incentive to buck the
judges,for they are also, by default, a member of that criminal
conspiracy that I have detailed in these pages. As officers of
those courts they have sworn OATH to uphold the law of CANADA and
they have obviously (whether by design or ignorance) abandoned
their clients rights and sacrificed them to CAKEHOLE LAW.

The neglect of the lawyers of B.C. to oppose CAKEHOLE LAW and
force those judges to obey the law of CANADA has placed them and
the judges in a position where they are incapable of reforming
themselves. IT MAY BE A SMELLY SEWER BUT IT'S THE ONLY ONE THEY
GOT.

I have no money to pay the money-changers at the temple to put
their stamp on this paper, so I will have to affirm it in your
court