BETWEEN

Take notice that David Alexander Parsons hereby appeals to this court under the provisions of section 42.(1) of the Supreme Court Act of Canada.

42.(1) NO APPEAL LIES TO THE COURT FROM A JUDGEMENT OR ORDER MADE IN THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION... EXCEPT IN MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS.

When the two qualifiers are cancelled out, we are left with the statement:

AN APPEAL LIES TO THE COURT FROM A JUDGEMENT OR ORDER MADE IN THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS

In 1886 the SUPREME COURT ACT stated:

24. An appeal shall lie to the SUPREME COURT

(g)...in any case of proceedings for or upon a writ of MANDAMUS

CHAP I 21 SECTION 44.(D)(ii) of the interpretation act of Canada states that where an enactment is repealed and another enactment is substituted therefore, the procedure established by the new enactment shall be followed  as far as it can be adapted thereto in the enforcement of rights, existing or accruing under the former enactment; 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.

Since historical times in English and Canadian law the extraordinary remedies have been the only real defense the common people have had to defend themselves against those who would misuse the law against them.

The criminal code states:

784.(1) An appeal lies to the court of appeal from a decision granting or refusing the relief sought in proceedings by way of mandamus

PARLIAMENT HAS DEEMED THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SHALL MAINTAIN MANDAMUS IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS OF CANADA

In accordance with s.42.(1) of the Supreme Court ACT OF Canada, I appeal the decisions on V03034, V03126, V03000, and V03156 pronounced in the court of appeal of B.C. on Sept. 14 1998 by JUSTICES Macfarlane, Hall, and Proudfoot and further I also appeal the decisions on V03001, V03057, and V03110 pronounced on Feb. 4 1998 by Justices Newberry, Finch, and Braidwood.

My arguments for these appeals are set out extensively in the affidavit of aug. 20, 1998 on appeals (V03126, V03156, V03000, and V03034) My further arguments on V03126 are contained in the constitutional question under that appeal dated dec. 23, 1997.

And further arguments are set out in the submission for V03057 dated JAN. 28, 1998.

And further are the arguments set out in the submission on V03001 dated June. 9, 1997.

I request this court to grant the remedies that have been denied me by the courts of B.C. in the appeals aforementioned and further that this court consider and rule on the matters as set out in the constitutional challenge of V03126

I would state to this court that I have had criminal acts committed against me by the RCMP and when I came before those judges and crown officials in the courts of B.C. I found not those who would dispense Justice, but those who were more concerned with whitewashing their PIGS at my expense.

The rcmPIGS let me know that they were committing these criminal acts against me and there was nothing I could do about it; they backed me in a corner and said defend yourself. They weren't concerned that the judges might decide to uphold my rights or that they might be held to account for their actions and for the most part, they were right.

They woke me from my stupor and filled me with a resolve

I have read the criminal law of Canada back to the 17th century and have discovered the disgusting criminal conspiracies that the judicial systems of B.C. have been perpetrating.

The Canadian criminal code states:

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 subsections (1) to (3).

Section 682. C.C mandates that RULES OF COURT must exist in relation to transcripts of trials and yet the judges of the criminal courts of B.C. have refused to make these mandatory rules, while on the other hand, the judges of the C.A.B.C have promulgated improper and illegal rules demanding that defendants on appeal provide transcripts to the C.A.B.C. in spite of the fact that the only statute allowing them to demand transcripts is S.682.(1) and S.682.(2) of the criminal code and clearly state that it is the judge who is commanded to produce the transcripts.

THE VARIOUS WORKS ON INTERPRETING STATUTES UNIVERSALLY PROFESS THAT AMBIGUOUS STATUTES ARE TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ACCUSED and further, those same works profess that any ambiguous sections or subsections ARE TO DRAW THEIR MEANINGS FROM THEIR PRECEDING PARENT SECTIONS OR FROM PRECEDING SECTIONS WITH THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER

And further, CHAP I 21 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.

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 and in further relation to the above acts, 1995 C.C. (criminal code):
  

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...

IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF 1927 C.C. S.1020 and S.1020. 5. and  ITS PRESENT DECLARATION IN S.682 C.C. THAT THE RULES OF COURT UNDER THE PRESENT S.482(3)(d)(ii) ARE MANDATORY.

The illegal practice of the criminal courts of B.C. in refusing to make the record of proceedings as defined in the criminal code:
  

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

     is a manifestation of a criminal conspiracy by those who are
     entrusted with the criminal law in B.C. and in conjunction
     with the illegal rules of the C.A.B.C demanding that an
     appellant provide the transcript that the justice of the
     peace or judge is required by law to produce in the record
     of proceedings, constitutes fraud and extortion in the
     criminal courts of B.C.

     THE  CONTRAVENTIONS ACT C-38 BY PARLIAMENT STATES IN NO
     UNCERTIAN TERMS THAT AN ORDER UNDER S. 530 OF THE CRIMINAL
     CODE IS A MANDATORY RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER PROSECUTION
     FOR CONTRAVENTIONS OR OTHER OFFENSES.

                 CONTRAVENTIONS ACT OF CANADA C-38

       4. The purpose of this act are
           (a) to provide a procedure for the prosecution of
           contraventions that reflect the distinction between
           criminal offenses and regulatory offenses and that is
           in addition to the procedures set out in the criminal
           code for the prosecutions of contraventions and other
           offenses;

      12. (1) An enforcement authority who believes from personal
          knowledge that a person has committed a contravention
          relating to parking a vehicle may, at the time of the
          alleged contravention, complete a ticket in respect of
          that contravention and serve it on the person or the
          owner of the vehicle.

      16. A ticket must be in the form prescribed under paragraph
          8 (1) (d)  and
          (f) provide an opportunity for the person to indicate in
              which official language, being the person's language,
              the person wishes to be tried;

      Language of trial
     30. The choice of a defendant in responding to a ticket as to
         the official language, being the defendant's language, in
         which the defendant wishes to be tried is DEEMED TO BE AN
         ORDER GRANTED UNDER SECTION 530 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND
         ACCORDINGLY SECTIONS 530.1 AND 531 OF THAT ACT APPLY IN
         RESPECT OF THAT CHOICE.

     THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRAVENTIONS ACT TO EXTEND THE FULL
     BENEFIT AND AND PROTECTION OF SECTIONS 530 AND 530.1 AND 531
     OF THE CRIMINAL CODE TO THOSE UNDER PROSECUTION FOR PARKING
     OFFENSES AND THE FURTHER PROVISION THAT THE CHOICE IS EXCLUSIVELY
     THE DEFENDANTS AND IS NOT INTERPRETABLE BY ANY JUDGE OR J.P.
     DEMONSTRATE CONCLUSIVELY THE " INTENT " OF PARLIAMENT THAT
     AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 530 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE IS A MANDATORY
     RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL IN ANY CRIMINAL OR QUASI-CRIMINAL COURT
     IN CANADA.
 

     The actions of ehrcke and palmer in refusing to grant a
     mandatory right of an individual before their courts is a
     criminal act regardless of acquittal or conviction and the
     refusal of the superior courts to allow recourse and remedy
     to prevent palmer from conducting an illegal trial, both
     from his refusal to grant the mandatory order under S.530 (
     which I contend deprived him of any jurisdiction over me in
     any proceedings ) and his refusal to comply with the
     mandatory requirements of S.536 thereby depriving me of my
     right to elect my method of trial; these actions I believe
     constitute a criminal conspiracy in that judge ehrcke stated
     in her reasons for judgement that her purpose was to prevent
     there being a transcript in the record of proceedings that
     would be available to me for inspection and verification,
     and palmer in upholding her decision and attempting to
     conduct an illegal trial, and the superior courts in
     refusing to allow recourse and remedy to prevent the
     completion of this criminal conspiracy ;all these facts
     point to the ineluctable conclusion that all the criminal
     courts of B.C. are participants in this criminal conspiracy.

     All judges conducting trials and hearings and all justices
     of the peace conducting hearings or hearing complaints are
     required to make a record of proceedings in legible writing of the evidence of the witnesses, under the mandatory
     provisions of S.540 of the criminal code and the majority of
     the judges of the criminal courts of B.C. have been involved
     in a criminal conspiracy to violate the mandatory provisions
     of S.540

     Parliament and Justice Canada could not confront the judges
     and attorney general of B.C. with criminal sanctions to
     compel them to obey the law, because that would expose their
     criminal conspiracy and bring the reputation of the law in
     B.C. into disrepute:So instead, THEY TOOK IT OUT OF THE
     HANDS OF THE JUDGES AND A.G. AND PLACED IT IN THE HANDS OF
     THE ACCUSED OR DEFENDANT.

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

     and in conjunction with the companion section 530.1

          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.

     S.530 and S.530.1 are a back door created by parliament to
     allow those judges to exit gracefully from the criminal
     conspiracy in which they have been trapped, but in their
     total denial and criminal arrogance they have spit in the
     face of parliament and are declaring the supremacy of their
     CAKEHOLE LAW over statute law

     IT BEHOOVES THIS COURT TO BOOT THEIR UNWILLING BUTTS THROUGH
     THAT DOOR AND WELD IT SHUT SO THEY CAN'T SNEAK BACK IN

     Parliament and Justice Canada seem unwilling or unable to
     confront those judges with criminal sanctions to force them
     to obey the law and to protect the rights of myself and the
     other individuals before those courts, so it has fallen to
     me

     I have refrained from filing criminal charges and criminal
     conspiracy charges against individual judges and against the
     court systems and against the A.G.B.C pending the decisions
     of this court and the corresponding changes in the courts of
     B.C.

     I REQUEST THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH CERTIORARI
     IN AID DIRECTED TO THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF B.C. AND TO THE
     SUPREME COURT OF B.C. AND TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF B.C. TO
     COMPEL THOSE COURTS TO MAKE AND PUBLISH RULES OF COURT FOR
     THE MAKING, KEEPING, INSPECTION, AND VERIFICATION OF
     TRANSCRIPTS IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS OF B.C. AND FURTHER TO
     MAKE RULES OF COURT FIXING THE CHARGES FOR COPIES OR
     TRANSCRIPTS

     AND FURTHER I REQUEST THAT THE ABOVE RULES BE MADE FOR S.533
     C.C. IN RELATION TO  S.530 AND S.530.1 C.C.

     I FURTHER REQUEST THIS COURT FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE
     RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF B.C.THAT DEMAND THAT THE
     APPELLANT PRODUCE TO THAT COURT, THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT THE
     JUDGE OR J.P. IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PRODUCE TO THAT COURT
     ARE ILLEGAL AND OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT IN THE CRIMNINAL LAW
     OF CANADA
 
 

                              V03057
                    DISCLOSURE  R. V. STINCHCOMBE
     I made no particular effort to defend myself in the illegal
     trial 05192 in colwood. My efforts in that courtroom
     consisted mostly of exposing the criminal acts of the police
     officers who testified at those illegal proceedings.
     palmer's efforts consisted mostly of trying to prevent any
     evidence of witnesses as to the criminal acts of the police
     officers. When the crown closed it's case I refused to make
     any defense and I refused to proceed in that illegal trial.

     I had already placed my case in the superior courts and knew
     that in this war of attrition, they had a great deal more to
     lose than I and they didn't dare convict me. It had been
     stated by several lawyers to me that it was an open and shut
     case for the crown and that if I didn't pull a very large
     and ferocious rabbit out of a hat that I would be convicted.

     IT IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT THAT AN INSTITUTIONALISED BIAS
     EXISTS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURTS ON A TRIAL OF AN OFFENSE
     UNDER S.129 C.C. AND SUCH A BIAS RAISES THE SPECTER OF ABUSE
     BY POLICE, CROWN, AND JUDGE.

     Palmer ordered??? that I stand mute and then acquitted me.
     In his reasons for judgement he stated.
               Mr. Parsons, you have insulted me, you have
     insulted the witnesses, you have insulted the prosecutor,
     you have even insulted the deputy sheriffs in the
     courthouse, you have expressed your absolute and utter
     contempt for me, for my court, and for the entire justice
     system and then he went on to say what that little criminal
     in the attorney general's office must have known before he
     so diligently attempted to railroad me;

         Mr. Parsons, you did not obstruct a peace officer.

     There is a rumour in the courts of B.C. that an
     unrepresented defendant blackmailed the judicial system of
     B.C. and forced them to unlawfully commit justice.
     There is also a rumour that the police who arbitrarily
     detained and imprisoned him, AND judge Higinbotham who
     arbitrarily detained and imprisoned him, and the J.P.s who
     arbitrarily issued process, and the judges who unlawfully
     denied him his rights and unlawfully tried him, and the
     superior courts in concert with A.G.B.C. who denied him
     recourse and remedy against the criminals misusing the law
     against him, should be the subject of an inquiry and further
     should be the subject of criminal and civil actions.
     I invite this court's comments on those rumours

     I would state to this court that on the trial of a Mr.
     Wardrope, who was charged with "pointing a firearm" and a
     co-defendant at that same trial, Paul Kuhn, charged with
     obstructing a peace officer, that the crown had neglected to
     ask the victims of that alleged offence (pointing a firearm)
       to testify and had refused to call any other witnesses, in
     spite of the fact that one of the investigating officers
     (constable Orthnor) was actually present in the courtroom

     Wardrope and Kuhn were acquitted in Feb. of 1997 in that
     courtroom because the crown refused to present any evidence
     whatsoever.

     The victims of that alleged offence(pointing a firearm) were
     the "mother, father, and son" that I had requested at the
     disclosure hearing before PALMER where he stated to me that
     "Mr. Campbell had given his undertaking to him (PALMER) that
     he would provide me with the names, addresses, and telephone
     numbers of the "mother, father, and son" so that I may
     contact them to determine if they could become part of the
     defense case".

     Duncan Campbell crown counsel colwood refused to comply with
     his undertaking to Palmer and when I re-applied before
     HIGINBOTHAM as per PALMER'S instruction, I was faced with
     the crown denial that PALMER had stated to me that the crown
     would comply with this court's decision in R. V. STINCHCOMBE
     HIGINBOTHAM was abusive and uncooperative at that hearing
     and his behaviour is best illustrated when he shouted "I
     DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE LAW " when I reiterated
     R.V.STINCHCOMBE to him . He dismissed my application.

     In the preceding hearing before palmer, when I stated that
     Campbell had refused to make proper disclosure to me in the
     past, PALMER stated (after he made the statement that
     Campbell  would supply the names, addresses, and tel. no. of
     the mother, father, and son) at page 13, lines 16 to 21

        THE COURT no, no, no. no, Mr. parsons, If you listened
     you might know what's going on
        THE ACCUSED Mn-hmn
        THE COURT what I said to you is that MR. CAMPBELLL HAS
          UNDERTAKEN TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU OUTSIDE
     THE COURTROOM.

     I would state to this court that I was a witness to the
     incident of the pointing of a firearm at the "mother,
     father, and son" and further was a witness to the improper
     acts of police officers. I was a witness to the police
     acting in a dangerous manner  and felt that people were
     being endangered by their actions and refused to stop being
     a witness. All this action took place virtually on my
     doorstep and I was not involved in any of these activities.
     I was arrested for refusing to stop being a witness

     When Higinbotham and the crown refused to make proper
     disclosure to me, the crown stated that those witnesses
     would be testifying at the Kuhn and Wardrope trial.
     When I appeared at that trial the crown refused to call any
     evidence.

     When I forced the crown to produce the "father and son" at
     my illegal trial, they affirmed their written statements to
     the police that a man had pointed a firearm at the head of
     Marie Brotherston "the mother" and had threatened her and
     them, and that they had never been notified  of the trial
     date of that person or even that there was a trial.

     I would say that those are extraordinary lengths to go to
     just to deprive me of the right to make full answer and
     defence, and to avoid compliance with this court's decisions
     in STINCHCOMBE.
     That little criminal in the attorney general's office
     decided to whitewash his slimy pigs by railroading me, and
     the judges went along with him.

     In the decision on V03057 pronounced on FEB.4, 1998 newberry
     states
            he (me) had sought the addresses and occupations of
     these persons but the provincial court judge (Palmer?) had
     declined to direct crown counsel to disclose that
     information.
     I HAVE BEEN LIED TO BY SOME OF THE BEST LIARS ON THE NORTH
     AMERICAN CONTINENT BUT I HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED A LIE OF
     SUCH DISGUSTING PROPORTIONS.
     THE ONLY QUESTION I POSE IS NOT WHO LIED TO ME BUT DID
     ANYBODY NOT LIE TO ME

     Their contempt for the rights  of the individuals before
     their courts is one thing but their contempt for parliament
     and for the decisions of this court are another.
     I have been in an adversarial relationship with virtually
     every  level of court in B.C. and with the A.G.'s office.
     With the exception of Mr. Mulligan of the crown every member
     of the crown in all of my applications for my legal rights
     in the courts of B.C. have opposed the granting of those
     rights.

      IT SEEMS THAT THE CROWN COUNSEL ACT OF B.C. IS JUST A PIECE
     OF TOILET PAPER FOR THE A.G.

     I REQUEST THIS COURT FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CRIMINAL
     COURTS OF B.C. ARE BOUND BY THE STANDARDS OF DISCLOSURE AS
     DECIDED BY THIS COURT IN  R. V. STINCHCOMBE AND
     PARTICULARLY, THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF B.C. ARE BOUND IN THIS
     AND ALL OTHER CASES BEFORE THEM
     AND FURTHER I REQUEST A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL JUDGE
     PALMER OR ANY OTHER JUDGE OF THAT COURT T0 DIRECT THE CROWN
     TO DISCLOSE THE ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE WITNESS
     'MARIE BROTHERSTON'
 
 

                    MANDAMUS CONSPIRACY

     A further manifestation of criminal conspiracy can be found
     in the proceedings for MANDAMUS before Owen-flood on #91203
     (V03001) and in MANDAMUS proceedings before Quiano  on
     #92278T (V03057).
     In both of these proceedings RULE 63 of the SUPREME COURT
     RULES of B.C. was enforced to deny those applications for
     mandamus
     Rule 63 was an attempt by the majority of the judges of the
     SUPREME COURT of B.C., who promulgated that illegal rule, to
     pervert and defeat the purpose of the law.

     The remedy of MANDAMUS in the criminal law allows me or
     anyone else to seek unrestrained recourse from those who
     would misuse the criminal law against us, and those judges
     have instituted a criminal conspiracy to deprive me or
     anyone else of that unrestrained recourse.

     THAT CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WAS CONSUMMATED BY OWEN-FLOOD AND
     BY QUIANO WHEN THEY DISMISSED MY APPLICATIONS ON THE GROUNDS
     THAT THEY HAD NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THEM

     At the hearing before Owen-flood on #91203 (V03001) 29 JAN.
     1997 the argument of Dr. George J. Ivanesko, executive crown
     counsel victoria, in adversarial response to my application
     for the remedy of MANDAMUS to compel judge ehrcke to grant
     my mandatory right for an order under S.530 C.C.;the legal
     argument??? he resorted to, when Owen-flood appeared to be
     wavering in my favour, was

      "IF YOU DO THIS FOR HIM, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO IT FOR
     EVERYONE, IT WILL OPEN THE FLOODGATES"

     Further at the hearing for MANDAMUS before Quiano on #
     92278T (V03057) for a writ to compel Higinbotham to make an
     order that the crown make proper disclosure on file # 05192
     colwood in accordance with R.V.STINCHCOMBE.
     Before addressing me, Quiano stated to Rusk (crown)
          "I DON'T FEEL RIGHT ABOUT DOING THIS"
     And Rusk replied
          "IF YOU DON'T, IT WILL OPEN THE FLOODGATES" or words to
     that effect.

     In the reasons for judgement Quiano stated
                    "MANDAMUS HAS BEEN ABOLISHED, MR RUSK IS
     RIGHT, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION"

     It is to Owen-flood's credit that at my next application for
     mandamus before him on # 92278T (V03126), he refused to
     consider Rusk's statement that "YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION"
     and proceeded to decide the application on the point of law
     that RULES OF COURT were discretionary.
     He indicated to me that he had read my submission on V03001
     (on appeal of his decision on 91203-T) submitted on June 19,
     1997

     Since my submission of June 19, 1997 for V03001 the S.C.B.C.
     and the C.A.B.C. have refused to hear any statements from
     Rusk, that they have no jurisdiction or that MANDAMUS has
     been abolished

     At the hearing of C.A. V03001, V03057, and V03110 on Feb. 3,
     1998 before Newberry, Finch, and Braidwood, one of the
     judges started getting pushy with me, so I raised the issue
     that I had stated in my submissions of June 19, 1997 in
     which I requested that RULE 63 of S.C.B.C. BE DECLARED
     ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that the appeals ( V03001
     and V03057 ) were actually appeals from RULE 63.
     NEWBERRY FAIRLY SHRIEKED AT ME THAT WE WERE NOT DISCUSSING
     THAT

     The S.C.B.C. and C.A.B.C. seem to be terribly embarrassed
     about being caught with their MANDAMUS down around their
     knees, but not embarrassed enough to abandon their other
     criminal conspiracies.
     I contend that the present rule 4 of the criminal rules of
     the Supreme Court of B.C.is essentially the same criminal
     conspiracy as it's predecesor 'rule 63 and I condemn it with
     the same arguments as presented in my submission of June 19,
     1997 for V03001
 

     EVEN THE MOST DROOLING IDIOT JUDGES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
     AVOID THE INELUCTABLE CONCLUSION THAT S.774 C.C. STATES IN
     NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES ARE
     ENTRENCHED IN THE CRIMINAL LAW OF CANADA.

     THOSE JUDGES HAVE DECLARED A RULE OF COURT  THAT IS
     INCONSISTENT WITH S.774 AND THEREFORE IS IN VIOLATION OF
     S.482 AND BY THEIR ACTIONS HAVE DEFINED AND DECLARED
     THEMSEVES.

     RULE 63  AND IT'S SUCCESSOR RULE 4 IS TOTALLY DEVOID OF
     PROVISION FOR APPEAL AND IN EFFECT WOULD CIRCUMVENT THE
     APPEALS AS OF RIGHT UNDER S.784 C.C. NOT ONLY IN MANDAMUS
     BUT FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND HABEAS CORPUS.

     I REQUEST THIS COURT FOR A DECLARATION THAT RULE 4 OF THE
     CRIMINAL RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF B.C. BE DECLARED
     ILLEGAL AND OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT IN THE CRIMINAL LAW OF
     CANADA
 
 

     Three years ago, when I was first railroaded, I began to
     read the criminal law; my purpose was to do something about
     the pigs who seem to be able to violate the legal and
     constitutional rights of the citizens of my country with
     impunity.
     I soon found that the problem is not the pig, the pig is
     just the pig; it does whatever it is allowed to do; the
     problem is the judicial system of B.C. and the POLICE STATE
     POWER of the ATTORNEY GENERAL of B.C.
 
 
 

        THE MOST EFFICIENT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS THE POLICE STATE

     The judges of B.C. have improperly interpreted the law to
     mean that they have absolute discretion to over-ride the
     rights of those before their courts in the pursuit of
     efficiency and expediency and have further maintained the
     fiction that they have absolute immunity in that pursuit.

                         V03156

     Further to the matter of the appeal V03156 when Higinbotham
     of the Provincial Court of B.C. had me detained and
     imprisoned  for not appearing for an illegal trial on 05192,
     he knowingly and wilfully committed a criminal  act.

          S.129. OF THE CRIMINAL CODE DOES NOT OF OR BY ITSELF
     CREATE OR BESTOW JURISDICTION ON A PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGE.
     BY ITSELF IT IS SCHIZOPHRENIC NONSENSE AND HAS ALWAYS
     REQUIRED A SUPPORTING STATUTE TO DIFFERENTIATE IT AND TO
     BESTOW JURISDICTION; THAT SUPPORTING STATUTE WAS S.483 OF
     1971 CRIMINAL CODE WHICH PLACED THE INDICTABLE OFFENSE OF
     S.118 OF 1971(OBSTRUCTING A PEACE OR PUBLIC OFFICER...)
     WITHIN THE ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION OF A MAGISTRATE,AND THE
     CONCORDANCE OF PRECEDING STATUTES LEADING BACK TO 1927 C.C.
     S.777

     The proper procedure and jurisdiction for obstructing or
     assaulting a peace officer was proclaimed  in the Canadian
     Criminal Code of 1892 and further proclaimed in 1927
     Canadian Criminal Code

                         1927 C.C.
               Jurisdiction--trial with consent

     773. Whenever any person is charged before a magistrate
        (e) with assaulting or obstructing any public or peace
             officer engaged in the execution of his duty, ...
          the magistrate may, subject to the subsequent
     provisions of this part, hear and determine the charge in a
     summary way, but only with the consent of the party so
     charged...

     777. The jurisdiction of the magistrate is absolute, and
     does not depend on the consent of the person charged to be
     tried by such magistrate in the following cases
          ...
        (c) in the provinces of British Columbia,...where any
     person is charged with an offense mentioned in any of
     the subsections of section seven hundred and seventy
     three, except paragraph (h)
      Sometime after 1927 parliament extended that absolute
     jurisdiction to all of Canada up to and including 1971 C.C.

     IN 1972 PARLIAMENT REPEALED THE SUBSECTION OF 1971 C.C.
     S.483.(c)(i) WHICH GAVE ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION TO A
     MAGISTRATE OVER THE OFFENSE OF  S.118(a), "...OBSTRUCTING OR
     ASSAULTING A PUBLIC OR PEACE OFFICER ..."  AND IN THE 1972
     CRIMINAL CODE  THE OFFENSE OF "OBSTRUCTING OR ASSAULTING A
     PUBLIC OR PEACE OFFICER ..." REVERTED TO THE DEFINITION OF
     1927 C.C. S.773 OF AN ELECTABLE OFFENSE BY THE ACCUSED.

     ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
     THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFORMING 1971 S.118 '...OBSTRUCTING PEACE
     OR PUBLIC OFFICER...' FROM AN INDICTABLE OFFENCE TO A SO-
     CALLED HYBRID OFFENSE WAS SIMPLY TO HAVE PROVISION FOR
     JURISDICTION WHEN AN ACCUSED ELECTED TO BE TRIED BY A
     MAGISTRATE UNDER 1972 S.484. C.C.
     IT WOULD BE A LOGICAL ABSURDITY FOR AN ACCUSED TO ELECT
     TRIAL BEFORE A MAGISTRATE WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER
     STATUTE
     THE SO-CALLED HYBRIDIZATION OF S.118 1972 C.C. WAS TO
     PROVIDE A CONDITIONAL JURISDICTION FOR A MAGISTRATE IF AN
     ACCUSED SHOULD ELECT UNDER S.484 1972 C.C. TO BE TRIED BY A
     MAGISTRATE.
     \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

     THAT PRESENT DAY ELECTION BY THE ACCUSED IS ENTRENCHED IN
     S.536 AND THE CONDITIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE PROVINCIAL
     COURT JUDGE UNDER S.129(e) IS ACTIVATED BY THE ELECTION OF
     THE ACCUSED UNDER
     S.536(2)

     IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION OF CANADIAN CRIMINAL LAW
     THAT THE CROWN DOES NOT CREATE OR BESTOW JURISDICTION BUT IS
     LIMITED TO PROCEEDING IN A COURT WHICH HAS EXISTING
     JURISDICTION WHICH MAY BE FOUND UNDER STATUTE.

     THERE IS NO STATUTE IN CANADA WHICH ALLOWS THE CROWN OR A
     PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGE TO ELECT THE METHOD OF TRIAL OF
     SECTION 129 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND EVERY SUCH TRIAL IN
     B.C. HAS BEEN ILLEGAL SINCE 1972

     in the decision of SZPYT v. THE QUEEN 1981 of this court
     Laskin C.J.C. delivered the judgement affirming the
     judgement of Trainor J. of the Ontario Court of Appeal that

     An accused charged with an offense which is niether in
     the absolute jurisdiction of the magistrate nor the
     exclusive jurisdiction of the superior court of criminal
     jurisdiction may, when put to his election pursuant to
     s.484 of the criminal code, elect the mode of trial...
               [R. v. Jory(1978), 46 C.C.C. (2d) 44, refd to]

     ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

     THE ONLY LEGAL PURPOSE I CAN DISCERN FOR THE HYBRID???
     OFFENSE OF S.129(e) IS TO PROVIDE A PLEA-BARGAIN OPTION AND
     THE ONLY MOTIVE I CAN CONCEIVE FOR THE CONSPIRACY BY THE
     CROWN AND THE PROVINCIAL COURT TO ILLEGALLY ELECT THE
     DEFENDANT'S METHOD OF TRIAL WOULD BE TO RAILROAD HIM.
     WHAT THE INITIAL PURPOSE OF THE RAILROAD WAS, I LEAVE UP TO
     THIS COURT'S IMAGINATION, BUT I BELIEVE THAT TOWARD THE END
     OF THAT ILLEGAL TRIAL IT WAS A DESPERATE DESIRE TO ACQUIT
     ME.
     I DID NOT CREATE THE SEWER THAT THE A.G. AND THOSE JUDGES
     WALLOWED AROUND IN AND I DID NOT FORCE THEM DOWN INTO IT.
     THEY CRAWLED DOWN INTO IT ALL BY THEMSELVES:SOME WERE
     ALREADY THERE AND I WATCHED OTHERS JOIN THEM.
     I FIND IT DISGUSTING AND DISHEARTENING TO HAVE TO LOOK DOWN
     ON THOSE JUDGES GIBBERING UP AT ME OUT OF THEIR SEWER.

     THE INNOCENT AS WELL AS THE GUILTY HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR
     AND LAWFUL TRIAL

     \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
     In the warrant for arrest of JAN. 9, 1997 on court file
     05192 of David Alexander Parsons by Judge Higinbotham it is
     stated.

     WHEREAS AN INDICTMENT HAS BEEN FOUND AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND
     HE HAS NOT APPEARED OR REMAINED IN ATTENDANCE BEFORE THE
     COURT FOR HIS TRIAL.

     I contend that the warrant abovementioned demonstrates the
     MENS REA of Higinbotham's criminal act.
     As a judge ,he is required to know the law and where his
     jurisdiction lies, and unable to produce a LAWFUL WARRANT
     FOR AN UNLAWFUL TRIAL he attempted the "PINOCCHIO MANOEUVRE"
     to extend his jurisdiction by LYING.
     He attempted to establish a legal and logical absurdity;
     that he had jurisdiction to try me in a summary manner
     without my consent, and also to charge me with not appearing
     for an indictable trial for which he had no jurisdiction.

     IT IS MY FURTHER CONTENTION THAT THE ACTIONS OF HIGINBOTHAM
     ON JAN. 9 1997 TO COMMIT ME TO JAIL WAS IN EFFECT A
     CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A TRIAL

     THE ACTIONS OF DUNCAN CAMPBELL C.C. IN STAYING THE CHARGE ON
     FILE 05192A OF THE FAILING TO APPEAR ALLEGATION HAS
     EFFECTIVELY DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO PROVE MY INNOCENSE IN A
     COURT OF LAW AND FURTHER HAS BRANDED ME WITH A CRIMINAL
     RECORD OF INCARCERATION FOR FAILING TO APPEAR FOR A TRIAL; A
     TRIAL WHICH THEY HAD NO JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT IN THE FIRST
     PLACE.

     \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////

     THE JUDGES OF THE COURTS OF B.C. ARE COMMITTING CRIMINAL
     ACTS IN THEIR COURTROOMS TO DEPRIVE ME AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS
     OF OUR LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THOSE COURTS AND
     ARE FURTHER REFUSING TO ALLOW ANY PROPER RULES OF COURT TO
     EXIST WHICH I OR ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL MAY RELY ON TO FORCE
     THOSE JUDGES TO OBEY THE LAW AND TO ENFORCE OUR RIGHTS.

     ////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

     I REQUEST THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL JUDGE
     PALMER OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF B.C. TO CONDUCT A HEARING
     UNDER S.536.(2) C.C. AT WHICH I MAY ELECT MY METHOD OF TRIAL
     ON COURT FILE# 05192 COLWOOD B.C.

     This brings us to Justice of the Peace Phalen on the hearing
     of the the private information of David Alexander Parsons
     Victoria registry, file # 92279 (C.A. V03156) at which
     hearing, testimony of the complainant David Alexander
     Parsons was heard, and the evidence of the prosecutor David
     Alexander Parsons was presented

     At that hearing I presented copies of court documents to
     Phalen in support of my charge.
     He refused to issue process and sometime later I discovered
     that HE HAD THOSE DOCUMENTS DESTROYED.

     The inside front cover of file  92279 states

          DOCUMENTS ON FILE BUT NOT MARKED AS EXHIBITS DESTROYED

          and initials which I assume are Phalen's.
     I have made numerous requests and applications to Phalen and
     other court officials for the inspection of the record of
     proceedings of the hearings before them, and have
     encountered nothing but obstruction and schizofrenic
     nonsense.
     The refusal of Phalen to make and produce a record of
     proceedings and his action in destroying or allowing to be
     destroyed ,the evidence presented by the official
     prosecutor, can by no stretch of the imagination,be
     considered as within his discretion.

     I REQUEST THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL
     JUSTICE OF THE PEACE PHALEN TO PRODUCE THE RECORD OF
     PROCEEDINGS TO THIS COURT ON FILE#  92279 (C.A. V03156) AND
     THAT I BE ALLOWED TO INSPECT AND VERIFY THE TRANSCRIPT AND
     THE EVIDENCE
     I REQUEST FURTHER THAT THIS COURT CONSIDER AND DECLARE MY
     RIGHT TO PROSECUTE ANYBODY OR EVERYBODY WHO CRIMINALLY
     VIOLATE MY RIGHTS UNDER THE CHARTER AND THAT MY APPLICATION
     UNDER S.24 OF THE CHARTER IS EXCLUSIVE AND PRECLUDES ANY
     INTERVENTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO OBSTRUCT OR
     FRUSTRATE ME IN MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PURSUE JUSTICE IN
     THE COURTS OF CANADA

     I FURTHER RQUEST THAT THIS COURT DETERMINE IF THERE WAS
     SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR THE J.P. TO PASS THIS MATTER TO A
     PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGE OR IF THERE EXISTS A MORE APPROPRIATE
     REMEDY ON FILE#  92279 (C.A. V03156)
 
 

                         V03034

     Further to the matter of the appeal V03034 from file#  89050
     Victoria wherein a writ of MANDAMUS was sought to compel
     justice of the peace( Speed ) of victoria , to issue process
     on file# 89050 victoria and further to the application to
     the Court of Appeal heard SEPT. 1, 1998 for a Writ of
     MANDAMUS directed to J.P. Speed to produce the reasons for
     judgement in the record of proceedings for file# 89050

     In the oral reasons for judgement of Speed at that hearing
     on file# 89050 wherein two police officers testified that
     RCMP Shotton did enter my dwelling and was in my dwelling
     without lawful excuse; Speed called the two police officers
     back into the courtroom and stated," Constable Shotton was
     in uniform and in the company of other officers, therefore
     he did not commit any offense".
     Speed had refused to allow me to present the sworn testimony
     of Shotton at a preliminary hearing in which he reiterated
     his statement in the report to crown that 'he had climbed up
     on my trailor,using the door handle and that his actions
     forced open the door of my trailor whereupon he proceeded to
     enter and conduct a search without obtaining a search
     warrant and removed my personal property without lawful
     excuse'.

     The actions of speed in assuming a fictional and absolute
     defense for shotton and refusing to issue process for those
     highly prejudiced reasons is a violation of his discretion
     and by his actions has usurped the role and function of a
     judge at a preliminary hearing or trial.
     Further, his opinion that police officers who are in uniform
     and in the company of other police officers cannot be held
     to account for committing criminal acts is a declaration of
     the   POLICE STATE.

     HIS STATEMENT IS AN ABSOLUTE INSULT TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM THAT
     EMPLOYS HIM AND A DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF THE CRIMINAL
     ARROGANCE OF THOSE WHO ARE MISUSING THE CRIMINAL LAW IN B.C.

     I REQUEST THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL
     JUSTICE OF THE PEACE SPEED TO PRODUCE THE RECORD OF
     PROCEEDINGS OF FILE# 89050 TO THIS COURT AND FURTHER THAT I
     BE ALLOWED TO INSPECT AND VERIFY THE TRANSCRIPTS AND
     EVIDENCE
     I FURTHER REQUEST THAT THIS COURT CONSIDER AND DETERMINE MY
     RIGHT TO PROSECUTE CONSTABLE SHOTTON FOR THE CHARTER OFFENSE
     AS SET OUT IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF AUG.20,1998 AND MY FURTHER
     RIGHT TO DO SO WITHOUT INTERFERENCE OR OBSTRUCTION BY THE
     ATTORNEY GENERAL.

     Parliament, in the criminal code and in the charter, have
     drawn a line for the criminal justice system,stating 'on
     this side ,you may do these lawful actions to our citizens
     and on the other side you may not'.

     THE J.P.'S ,JUDGES, JUSTICES, AND A.G. OF B.C. HAVE LONG
     CROSSED THAT LINE AND ARE BLUNDERING ABOUT IN CRIMINAL LAND
     WHILE THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS BEEN TRYING TO ERASE THAT LINE
     AND PRETEND THAT IT NEVER EXISTED.

     The J.P.'s, judges, and A.G. of B.C. no longer represent or
     administer the criminal law of Canada as it is proclaimed by
     parliament.

     THE CRIMINAL INJUSTICE SYSTEM OF B.C. IS PAST THE POINT OF
     NO RETURN.
     LIKE THE HONEST POLICE OFFICER WHO IS FORCED TO EXIST
     ALONGSIDE THE PIGS WHO DEGRADE THEIR PROFESSION, THE HONEST
     JUDGES OF B.C. ARE UNABLE TO REVERSE THE CRIMINAL
     CONSPIRACIES IN WHICH THEY ARE TRAPPED.

      I contend that the criminal courts of canada have been
     required to make and publish rules of court and have been
     required to do so since the early eighteen hundreds. I
     further contend that the refusal of the courts of B.C. to do
     so, is a violation of my legal and constitutional rights as
     set out in my arguments in the constitutional challenge of
     V03126.

     I further contend that in order for those courts of B.C. to
     claim proper jurisdiction over an unrepresented accused or
     defendant before their courts, that rules of court are
     prerequisite, and I request this court to clarify for me why
     the courts of B.C. have been allowed to railroad me and
     other unrepresented defendents.

     \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////
     THE ONLY RULES THAT EXIST IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS OF B.C. ARE
     THOSE OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE BAR WHICH DICTATE HOW
     LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE TO INTERACT IN THE COURTS AND THESE
     RULES ARE BINDING ON ALL JUDGES AND LAWYERS.
     WHEN A LAWYER CONTRACTS WITH A DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT THAT
     DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL COURT THEN AS AN OFFICER OF THE
     COURT THAT LAWYER HAS INITIATED A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COURT
     AND THE DEFENDANT TO CONDUCT A LAWFUL TRIAL OR PROCEEDING

     BY CONTRACTING THAT LAWYER THE DEFENDANT HAS CONSENTED TO
     THE JURISDICTION OF THAT COURT AND TO THE RULES OF COURT ON
     WHICH THOSE JUDGES AND LAWYERS HAVE AGREED TO PROCEED.

     AN UNREPRESENTED DEFENDENT HAS NO CONTRACT IN EFFECT WITH
     ANY CRIMINAL COURT OR ANY LAW SOCIETY OR BAR AS TO RULES OF
     COURT FOR THE PLEADING,PRACTICE,AND PROCEDURE IN THAT COURT.

     ############################################################
     THE ONLY RULES OF COURT THAT ARE BINDING ON AN UNREPRESENTED
     ACCUSED IN SUCH COURT ARE THOSE THAT ARE PUBLISHED IN THE
     CANADA GAZETTE BY THAT COURT PERSUANT TO S.482 OF THE
     CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE.
     ############################################################
     THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF B.C. HAS NO RULES WHATSOEVER AND
     MUST RELY ON THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED WHICH THEY OBTAIN BY
     TRICKING HIM INTO MAKING A PLEA. WITHOUT A PLEA OR SOME
     OTHER CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED,THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF B.C.HAS
     NO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION TO TRY HIM.

     Such a trial, without proper rules of court ,on which an
     unrepresented accused or defendant, may plead and proceed on
     to make full answer and defense, in an adversarial arena
     where only the judge and prosecutor have prior knowledge of
     the secret and arbitrary rules of the contest, would be a
     complete denial of the right to a fair trial before an
     impartial tribunal as guaranteed by s.11(d) of the charter
     Further,such a trial would contravene my right to the full
     benefit and full protection of the law as proclaimed in
     section 15 of the charter.

     THE SUPREME COURT OF B.C. ALSO HAS NO RULES FOR THE PLEADING
     PRACTICE, AND PROCEDURE OF CRIMINAL TRIALS AND I WOULD ALSO
     CONTEND THAT THAT COURT ALSO SUFFERS FROM A DEFICIENCY OF
     JURISDICTION BY THEIR REFUSAL TO MAKE AND PUBLISH PROPER
     RULES OF COURT ON WHICH A UNREPRESENTED ACCUSED MAY PLEAD
     AND PROCEED ON TO MAKE FULL ANSWER AND DEFENSE.

I CONTEND THAT THOSE RULES ARE NOT ONLY NECESSARY FOR THE FULL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF THE DEFENDENT BUT ARE ESSENTIAL TO PROVIDE DIRECTIONS AND NECESSARY CONSTRAINTS FOR THOSE JUDGES WHO MAY INADVERTENTLY? STRAY INTO CRIMINAL LAND.
I WOULD FURTHER REQUEST THIS COURT TO EXTEND THAT WRIT TO APPLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF B.C. AND TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF B.C. AND FURTHER THAT THERE BE CERTIORARI IN AID.
 

The majority of those who seek power are already corrupt and are merely seeking an arena in which they may indulge themselves; for some it is vanity, for others it is money, and for that most dangerous of all, it is unadulterated power.

The last category are found in the ranks of the PIGS, POLITITICIANS, AND JUDGES AND IF UNOPPOSED WILL INEXORABLY IMPOSE THE POLICE STATE.

The power of the attorney generals under the criminal code to stay the charges of a private prosecutor against those in the criminal justice system who misuse the criminal law against him amounts to nothing less than a POLICE STATE and the further interpretation by the PIGS AND POLITITIONS that S.33 of the CHARTER  confers an absolute right on any legislative assembly to proclaim POLICE STATE LAWS to deprive us of our legal and constitutional rights;these are manifestations of that dark side of the law, which will never be satisfied until all citizens are legally defined as just a bunch of potential criminals.
 

IT WOULD BE INSANE TO MAINTAIN THAT PARLIAMENT PROCLAIMED OUR RIGHT TO SEEK JUSTICE IN OUR COURTS AND AT THE SAME TIME CONFERRED A POLICE STATE POWER ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STEAL THAT RIGHT FROM US, AND IT WOULD BE SCHIZOFRENIC NONSENSE TO FURTHER MAINTAIN THAT PARLIAMENT PROCLAIMED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS ONLY TO FURTHER BESTOW ON ANY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY THE POWER TO STEAL THOSE RIGHTS AND CRIMINALISE US WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN.

There is a war that is waged in every civilisation by those who would impose the police state and it is invariably fought in the criminal courts ,because there is where our legal rights are defined.

THOSE WHO WOULD IMPOSE THE POLICE STATE HAVE BEEN WITH US SINCE THE DAWN OF CIVILATION:THEY ARE BORN INTO EVERY GENERATION AND WILL PLAGUE US UNTIL MANKIND IS FINALLY EXTINCT.

I maintain to this court that the only way out of the schizofrenic nonsense of S.33 and and the seemingly police state powers of the A.G. lie in the provisions of S.24(1) of the CHARTER.

Section 33 of the charter does give any legislative assembly the authority to proclaim a notwithstanding act and to have that act operate in law,but S.24(1) also bestows on me or any other individual whose rights or priviledges are infringed or denied by that act, the exclusive right to apply to a court to have that law neutered if it cannot be demonstrably justified under S.1 of the charter.

S.1 OF THE CHARTER CLEARLY PLACES THE ONUS ON THOSE PROCLAIMING AN ACT TO DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFY IT'S PRESSING AND URGENT NECESSITY IN A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

Furthermore S.24 bestows the right to apply to the criminal courts for a remedy under S.126 of the criminal code for criminal contravention of charter rights.

I MAINTAIN THAT THE CRIMINAL COURTS MAY DETERMINE IF THOSE WHO PROCLAIM AN ACT UNDER S.33 HAVE DONE SO FOR ARBITRARY OR CLEARLY UNJUSTIFIABLE REASONS, AND THAT THEY ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO PUNISH NOT ONLY THOSE WHO CRIMINALLY CONTRAVENE CHARTER RIGHTS BUT, ALTERNATELY, TO ALSO PUNISH THOSE WHO CONSPIRE TO CONTRAVENE THOSE RIGHTS

I have read many decisions of this court wherein it has been declared that the police and or court officials have committed criminal acts against innocent people; They are too numerous to mention.

On DEC.2 1998 the court of appeal of B.C. allowed my appeal on v02841 and overturned the conviction on file 86309-T Supreme court of B.C. and substituted a verdict of acquital for the jury's verdict.

In the incident for which the improper conviction took place, GUNTHER MIELKE of the rcmp, without any lawful excuse or provocation, placed his gun under my chin and screamed "I'LL BLOW YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT"

In that same incident,constable Shotton of the rcmp broke and entered my dwelling and committed theft.

At the preliminary inquiry MIELKE committed blatant perjury to attempt to legitimise the criminal acts of SHOTTON and continued that perjury at the trial.

At that same incident MIELKE broke and entered my store and when questioned at the trial, stated that he was looking for money. He stated that they knew that I carried large sums of money and that he looked around in my store to see if there was any loose money lying around.

AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLICITY AND STIGMA OF THIS CASE I HAVE LOST MY BUSINESS AND AS A RESULT OF THAT IMPROPER CONVICTION,I WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE CANADIAN RANGERS AND DEPRIVED OF MY MILITARY SERVICE AND THAT SOURCE OF INCOME.

THE PERJURY OF MIELKE HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CROWN IN B.C. AND YET THAT LITTLE CRIMINAL IN THE A.G.'S OFFICE REFUSES TO ALLOW ME RECOURSE TO PROSECUTE THE PIGS WHO HAVE COMMITTED CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST ME AND AGAINST JUSTICE.

FURTHER I WAS ACQUITTED IN JUNE 1998 IN COLWOOD COURTHOUSE WITHOUT MAKING ANY DEFENSE IN THE TRIAL OF 05192.

THE COURTS AND THE A.G. OF B.C. HAVE REFUSED ME RECOURSE AND REMEDY AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE MISUSED THE LAW AND COMMITTED CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST ME.

WITHOUT RECOURSE AND REMEDY "CANADIANS ARE JUST A BUNCH OF PRETEND PEOPLE, LIVING IN A PRETEND COUNTRY, WITH A PRETEND LAW"

WITHOUT THAT RECOURSE AND REMEDY, THE POLICE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN " PIGS ",THE ENFORCERS OF THE POLICE STATE

In the juidicial writings of members of this court has been a dismay at the lack of teeth in our constitution; When condemned by this court, for their criminal acts, the pigs and the courts have just shrugged and turned to their next victim. You have the power to remedy that.

I have read judicial writings on constitutional law by members of this court wherein they have stated that a remedy might be fashioned under S.126 of the criminal code.

I would state that among the handful of legal people who have acted with integrity and have not violated their office are: Mr. Mulligan, E.C.C, Justice of the peace Peter Holmes, Madam Justice Ryan C.A.B.C., and those judges of the C.A.B.C. who assisted me by exempting me from the ILLEGAL transcript rules of the C.A.B.C.

A VAGUE LINE DIVIDES ERROR OF LAW FROM CRIMINAL ACT WHERE DISCRETION IS INVOLVED BUT THAT LINE NARROWS TO A RAZORS EDGE WHERE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS MANDATED BY PARLIAMENT ARE KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY VIOLATED BY THOSE WHO ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD THOSE RIGHTS.

I HAVE REFRAINED FROM PURSUING CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY CHARGES AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF B.C. AND AGAINST THE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE PROVINCIAL,SUPREME, AND COURT OF APPEAL OF B.C. IN THE EXPECTATION THAT THIS COURT WILL REMOVE THEM FROM JEOPROADY BY A DECLARATION OF MY RIGHTS.

THIS COURT WOULD DO A GREAT JUSTICE TO THE HONEST POLICE OF THIS COUNTRY TO PROCLAIM THAT THE PIGS ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE TO THE CITIZENS THEY VICTIMISE.

I have made great effort to bring this before you. I have done my part.

It is time for you to do yours