I david alexander parsons of make oath and say as follows

1. I am the apellant in this proceeding and as such have personal knowledge of the matters and facts hereinafter deposed to save wherein stated to be on information and belief and whereso stated verily believe the same to be true.

2. On or about OCTOBER 1 1996 the crown requested an adjournment of my trial(05192) which was to proceed in several days time. At this hearing I instructed my lawyer (BLAZINA) to apply for an order under 530(4)c.c.c.

I had discovered this section of the c.c.c. and the relief from some of the financial burdens imposed by the transcript requirements on appeal as provided in the companion section 530.1(g)  BLAZINA had no knowledge of these sections and so had not advised me to apply for an order within the time period specified in 530.(1) Since discovery of this section I have questioned every lawyer and J.P. I have come into contact with and a few judges as well.Not one of them was aware of section 530.1

The judgement of judge EHRCKE was that this was an english court and that therefore she was not required to comply with section 530.(4) This interpretation of section 530. creates a situation of inequality and imposes burdens and hurdles based on language and ethnic origin and seriously violates section 15 of the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. The notices posted by these courts in respect to section 530 are deficient in that they do not state that the defendant can apply to have an order that the language of the proceedings be in English and furthermore do not state the further protection and equality as guaranteed in section 530.1 c.c.c. because of the deficient notice of section 530 by these courts and the general ignorance of the legal profession as to the mandatory nature of section 530 and the protection and benefit that automatically flow from section 530.1 I contend that the discretionary order under 530.(4) must be granted in a situation where the accused or defendant has not been informed of his right to such an order and the protection and benefit that flows from it.

3. At the hearing above stated no new trial date was set or stated and I was told by my attorney (BLAZINA) that the crown would fix a date somewhere in january 1997. subsequently I was not informed of the exact date of the trial. During the first week of January 1997 I attempted to contact my lawyer (BLAZINA) at his office several times by phone and twice in person but due to weather and illness we never connected. About noon of January 9 I learned by telephone to his office that my trial had been at 9:30 that morning and I immediately proceeded to Colwood courthouse where I was immediately arrested and charged with failing to appear and was sent to WILKINSON RD. JAIL for the night. I was released the next day upon a recognizance and returned on JAN 14 to set a trial date. At this hearing I applied for an order under section 530.(1) that the proceedings be conducted in English.

4. Judge Ehrcke ruled that even though section 530.(1) appeared to be mandatory and that it was worded in the imperative, that it only applied to the French language and that the language of the courts in British Columbia were English and that therefore she was not required to comply with section 530.(1) If the orders of judge Ehrcke are allowed to stand, then the judicial systems of this country will become a lottery where the rights and privleges of the defendants vary with the whims of judges who are allowed to pretend that the mandatory provisions of Parliament to regulate the courts and protect the rights of individuals can be ignored.
 

13. The nature of the orders I seek are two-part. The dismissal of at least one of my applications by judge ehrcke (530.(1) for court file no. 05192-A ) is illegal and places her in violation of section 126. of the CRIMINAL CODE and further that her actions in implying qualifications to an unambiguous statute is creating a mischief in the courts by initiating a situation of inequality in the courts based on language  and ethnic origin and is a serious violation of section 15 of the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. of the CONSTITUTION OF CANADA  and further infringes on my rights under section 11.(d) of that charter and I request this court for a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to compel judge ehrcke to reverse her dismissal of both of my applications under section 530 for the above grounds and for further grounds as stated next...

16. SECTION 126 of the CRIMINAL CODE states that everyone who willfully omits to do an act that is required to be done by an act of Parliament is guilty of an indictable offense.

Some or all?? of the courts of British Columbia have been committing criminal acts against JUSTICE and THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM and depriving thereby individuals before those courts of their rights under the CRIMINAL CODE and the CONSTITUTION of our country.

How long this CRIMINAL ACTIVITY has been going on no-one in the criminal justice system seems able or willing to tell me.

17. In 1992 section 530.1 came into force in the province of British Columbia and in conjunction with the companion section 530.it entrenched the requirement that the record of proceedings in British Columbia shall include a transcript of everything that was said in those proceedings. The refusal  of judge ehrcke to grant an order under section 530 further compounds this injustice being perpetrated by those courts of British Columbia and is a spit in the face of parliament.

It is no co-incident that section 530.1 was placed in a position where it was not in conflict with any other section or act of parliament and is protected by a language law with deep roots in our constitution; a mandatory section of the CRIMINAL CODE which cannot be interpreted or tampered with without creating mischief and injustice in the courts.

18. SECTIONS 530 and 530.1 are a back door created by parliament to allow those judges to exit a situation which is inherently improper and into which they may have fallen by no fault of their own by following the long trail of other judges  who also have been following others who were in error.

19. For the above reasons that the transcript requirements of the criminal code presently and as stated in all previous related statutes are being actively violated by the courts of British Columbia and further that this violation extends into our constitution as well, I request this court to grant the remedy requested.