Author Information
LEGAL BULLYING - AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR - 1912)
Folder Contents
Court file No.: 12-1912 CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(Central West Region)
BETWEEN:
WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/INFORMANT
-and-
HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
_________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF
WAYNE FERRON(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR)
__________________________________
affidavit
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(Central West Region)
BETWEEN:
WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/INFORMANT
-and-
HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT OF
WAYNE FERRON(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR)
I, Wayne FERRON of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
[1] There has been no ruling or endorsement for my ROWBOTHAN ORDER(CR-12-1912) for which the HEARING DATE was on November 30, 2012. Please see EXHIBIT D-12-1912, EXHIBIT E-12-1912, EXHIBIT F-12-1912, and EXHIBIT G-12-1912.
[2] At no time did I(Private Prosecutor) by oral argument or paper review affect ROWBOTHAM ORDER(CR-12-2124) before the Honourable Justice Durno; I filed a NOTICE which was blocked or rejected by the Honourable Justice Durno, so I never pass the initial stage of NOTICE for the said Rowbotham application. The application was killed before it had a change to be perfected. Please see EXHIBIT D-12-1912, EXHIBIT E-12-1912, EXHIBIT F-12-1912, and EXHIBIT G-12-1912.
[3] The Crown has failed to disclose pending requested disclosure of public evidence and pending requested further disclosure for the purposes of enforcement of the RULE OF LAW. Please see EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[4] Officer Pekeski(2261) has stolen my property for which I have exercise my colour of right over the same property on many occasions. I have been continually denied access to my stolen property and enjoyment or benefit of the same stolen property since August 2011. The following are some of my property stolen by Officer Pekeski(2261) and to which the same Officer failed to return my property in a reasonable time and in accordance with the rule of law and Police protocol; red Nike shorts, thin brown wallet, many keys for locks, York University ID, OHIP Card, Driver's License, Bank Card, small amount of money, Bus tickets, tokens, Primer Fitness access Card, and Doctors prescribes essential medication to prevent organ damage etc.
[5] I the Private Prosecutor reviewed court file CR-12-1912 under the supervision of the REGISTRAR at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Central West Region) a few days before the ROBOTHAM APPLICATION (12-1912) on November 30, 2012. The following was found or omitted in the said file,
Court file number CR 12-1912 was for the private prosecution of Officer Pekeski(2261);
· ROWBOTHAM ORDER FACTUM(CR-12-00001912) was received stamped received on September 5, 2012 by the Registrar;
· there is no endorsement on ROWBOTHAM ORDER FACTUM(CR-12-00001912);
· there is no separate or loose sheet with endorsement of ROWBOTHAM ORDER FACTUM(CR-12-000001912)
· Justice Jurno's court order or direction to the Registrar, to PLACE ALL OF WAYNE FERRON’S , MATTER BEFORE THE SAME JUSTICE is missing.
[6] I the Private Prosecutor reviewed court file CR-12-2124 under the supervision of the REGISTRAR at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region) a few days before the ROBOTHAM APPLICATION(12-1912) on November 30, 2012. The following was found or omitted in the said file;
court file number CR 12-1912 was for the private prosecution of Doctor Handler;
• March 14, 2012 TRANSCRIPT was filed on November 26, 2012;
• May 23, 2012 TRANSCRIPT was filed on October 25, 2012;
• the court documents before the PRE-ENQUETTE were not present;
• the Crown was given access to the relevant court files for the sole purpose of serving and filing court materials (evidence) which was before the Pre-Enquetes.
[7] I the Private Prosecutor reviewed court file CR-12-2150 under the supervision of the REGISTRAR at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region) a few days before the ROBOTHAM APPLICATION(12-1912) on November 30, 2012. The following was found or omitted in the said file,
court file number CR 12-1912 was for the private prosecution of Anglea Pasquale;
· defective September 6, 2012 TRANSCRIPT was filed, there was no pre-enquete on the said date; however, the pre-enquete was conducted on September 5, 2012 and the date for filing the same transcript is missing or has been omitted;
· the other two transcripts for June 27, 2012 and August 15, 2012 are missing and has not been filed in addition to a viable September 5, 2012 Pre-Enquete transcript to be used as real evidence for the appeal from the lower court.
[8] I the Private Prosecutor reviewed court file CR-12-2124 under the supervision of the REGISTRAR at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Central West Region) a few days before the ROBOTHAM APPLICATION (12-1912) on November 30, 2012. The following was found or omitted in the said file,
Court file number CR 12-2124 was for the private prosecution of Doctor Handler;
• March 14, 2012 TRANSCRIPT was filed on November 26, 2012;
• May 23, 2012 TRANSCRIPT was filed on October 25, 2012;
• the court documents before the PRE-ENQUETTE were not present or omitted;
• The Crown was given access to the relevant court files for serving and filing court materials which was before the Pre-Enquetes.
[7] I the Private Prosecutor reviewed court file CR-12-2151 under the supervision of the REGISTRAR at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region) a few days before the ROBOTHAM APPLICATION(12-1912) on November 30, 2012. The following was found or omitted in the said file,
Court file number CR 12-2151 was for the private prosecution of Gloria Gingrich;
· defective September 6, 2012 TRANSCRIPT was filed, there was no pre-enquete on the said date; however, the pre-enquete was conducted on September 5, 2012 and the date for filing the same transcript is missing or has been omitted;
· the other two transcripts for June 27, 2012 and August 15, 2012 are missing and has not been filed in addition to a viable September 5, 2012 Pre-Enquete transcript to be used as real evidence for the appeal from the lower court.
[8] I have been denied my HUMAN RIGHTS, and HUMAN DIGNITY on many occasions at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE in contravention of their own policy which used to be on most of the walls in the same Court house; asper the ONTARION HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, there is supposed to be;
“Freedom from harassment and discrimination in employment and services, and fair and equitable access to all services...”
Please see EXHIBIT TOU3.
[9] I tried to place before a Justice of the Piece crimes (12-1912/12-4395) committed in the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario, and my legal rights were taken away, I was arrested, and unlawfully imprisoned for 13 days without access to a lawyer or impartial trial for the just determination of my imprisonment, for trying follow the direction of Section 504 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Please see EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[10] I tried to file an appeal (12-70000061/12-70000062) against those who have committed criminal acts against the public and consider themselves above the law, and I was arrested(Offence Number: 8271152B ) , and denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW with no notice of trial, no disclosure, no opportunity to give full answer, and no opportunity to effect a defence in accordance with the consciousness of the court, and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. Please see EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[11] After patiently waiting through about 3 adjournment of no fault of my own to give, and adversarial rebuttal to the Crown's arguments(12-2150/12-2151) for which I was denied disclosure of the authority the crown's arguments relied on with a pending request, the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE was ordered to escort me out of the court house even though I had the right to give my evidence exparte and in accordance with the will of Parliament and Section 507.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.
[12] I tried to prepare to give FULL ANSWER (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B ) in accordance with parliamentary legislation for a trial/conviction void of notice, and the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE was directed to escort me out of the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE without the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, and in contravention of Section 7 of THE SUPREME LAW OF CANADA, and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. This seems to be the state of excepted civilized practice of Canadian Law in the Province of Ontario. Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[13] On May 14, 2013, at or about 3:40 p.m., in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full answer for allege crimes(Offence Number: 8271152B ) I am charge with in the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. I was discriminated against with systemic prejudice, called “CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge of me, in addition to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in front of the administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKED OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by distinction without reasonable cause, but also conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my person even though they are required not to do so(OPEN COURT POLICY). Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[14] On May 14, 2013, in the justice of the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE(A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I signed the INTAKE LOG BOOK at about 3:30 p.m. requesting audience by a HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE for the purpose of commissioning an AFFIDAVIT(AFFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON) for the purpose of giving full answer in a criminal proceeding as is require by the presiding TRIAL JUSTICE( ONCJ COURT) to give his reasons for judgment, the same also being required by parliamentary legislation in giving FULL ANSWER in accordance with Section 7 of the Charter. . Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[15] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS
COURTHOUSE), some of the clients for legal services recorded in the same INTAKE LOG BOOK are as follows;
Victoria Chrustipher;
Vandabirk(2619);
Hellen Kim;
Rebecca;
Lyn Glodman;
Wayne Ferron;
Bial Abdul Baasit....
[16] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE(A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS
COURTHOUSE), I personally informed the administrative clerk of the same office of the purpose of my attendance. The same Clerk requested a copy of my Affidavit, which I gladly gave to her for review before seeing a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, for I reasonable believe this was the condition for being permitted to see A JUSTICE OF THE PIECE; the same CLERK advised my person that I should be going to CITY HALL, I intern informed the same CLERK that the matter is a CRIMINAL MATTER and the CRIMINAL CODE directs me to go before a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE so I would like to see a JUSTICE OF THE PIECE, since CITY HALL IS NOT A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. . Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[17] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE(A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE), YOUR WORSHIP whom refused to identify himself by name or deal with my matter(Court File Number: 3160-8271152B) AFTER BEING SIEASED BY THE SAME MATTER on the record asper my oral request, reviewed my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON(Court File Number: 3160-8271152B) for about 10 to 15 minutes and became duly sieased with the matter before him. YOUR WORSHIP MADE an adjudication against my person without evidence, without personal knowledge, without witnesses, without the PROSECUTION being given the opportunity to vet my evidence by affidavit byway of cross examination of affidavit by right, and with out the benefit of an adversarial impartial trial; that my AFFIDAVIT, my personal account of the matter before him(Court File Number: 3160-8271152B) DID NOT CONFORM TO REALITY without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE establishing what the factual truthfulness of the reality he spoke of or the presentation of witnesses to corroborate his assertions. . Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[18] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE), YOUR WORSHIP whom refused to identify himself by name or deal with my matter (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B) AFTER BEING SIEASED BY THE SAME MATTER gave me what appear to be legal advice to go to the POLICE STATION for my matter, which is not a court of competent jurisdiction in the adjudication of a criminal proceeding. I ask YOUR WORSHIP, if he doesn't have jurisdictional authority to deal with my matter?
[19] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS
COURTHOUSE), YOUR WORSHIP whom refused to identify himself by name or deal with my matter (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B) on the record asper my oral request, while being duly sieased with my matter( AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON(3160-8271152B), took it upon himself to officially speak for all the HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE without proof of his jurisdictional authority to do so while asserting that;
“NO OTHER JUSTICE WILL DEAL WITH YOU...”
when I requested on many occasion to see a different JUSTICE OF THE PIECE in the face of his blatantly refusal to deal prudently with my matter( AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON without reasonable cause. How was another HONOURABLE JUSTICE on May 6, 2013 able able to commission a SUPEONA against William Kristy(1606) to give evidence in the same matter(3160-8271152B), given YOUR WORSHIP'S ASSERTIONS ? How? . Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[20] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE(A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS
COURTHOUSE), YOUR WORSHIP whom refused to identify himself by name or deal with my matter (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B) on the record asper my oral request, while being duly sieased with my matter ( AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON(3160-8271152B), instructed INTAKE OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF to call security to remove me from the same COURTHOUSE without reasonable cause or articulated legal justifiable reasons while I was trying to affect due process of law. . Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[21] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS
COURTHOUSE), OFFICER_1608, and OFFICER_2216 whom refused to identify themselves by name, and badge number when asked to do in accordance with POLICE POLICY and PEEL REGIONAL POLICE policy; took it upon themselves to act in secrecy and unanimity in enforcing the wishes of YOUR WORSHIP, in preventing my person from affecting my legal rights in giving full answer in accordance with Section 7 of the SUPREME LAW OF CANADA and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.
[22] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE(A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS
COURTHOUSE), OFFICER_1608 and OFFICER_2216 whom refused to identify themselves by name ESCORTED my person out of the same courthouse in contravention of my Section 7 rights, while other members of the collective enjoyed the same rights I was being denied being duly administered to. . Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.
[23] On May 14, 2013, in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS
COURTHOUSE), I was denied due process of law without reasonable cause or legal justification of the denial of due process of law being articulated to my person. I wonder if the HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE in the next paragraph was one of the Justices YOUR WORSHIP SPOKE OF, that would not deal with my matter.
[24] The week before, on May 6, 2013, I when to JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE(A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE), to have a SUBPOENA commissioned. The honourable Justice of the Peace, His Worship Donald Dundar who commissioned the SUBPEONA against William Kristy(1606) at first instant, directed me to the PROVINCIAL OFFENCE OFFICE at 5 Ray Lawson.
[25] This was the first time after more than one year, I was able to obtain a certified copy of the Information (8271152B) upon my insistence that a Honorable Justice of the Peace had sent me and in conjunction with the same Justice of the Peace email to the Provincial Offence Office. After about one year of being charged and convicted, I received an undated certified copy of Information (8271152B) which gives the courts the jurisdictional authority to convict my person byway of an impartial trial and the crown the legal authority to prosecute my person. The box which indicate the issuing of a summons to have an accuse attend court for the identification of a crime was blank and unchecked; which means that there was no process found in accordance with section 507 of parliamentary legislation. That is, trial and conviction in secrecy without the issuance of a legal process being found, without reasonable notice, and without proper disclosure of right being issued to enable the accuse to give full answer for allege crimes.
[26] On May 14, 2013, in the BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE FOR PROVINCIAL OFFENCE at 5 Ray Lawson, while being emotionally dis-trot in the face of overwhelming injustice and denial of due process of law, I failed to file my court materials since all the offices in the same courthouse closed promptly at 4:30 p.m. In addition to me believing that the Offices close at 5:00 p.m. Like other court houses. Security Officer SHERUDON(1415) whom saw me and felt empathy for my person, tried to show some kindness and humanity by writing the following;
“-was at Ray Lawson Court in Brampton May 14, 2013
-doing paperwork inside building for at least 1 hour
-4:30 p.m. Officer Sherudon # 1415 Peel Police.”
[27] The following are most of the content of the AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON(3160-8271152B), spoken about above or the contents of the AFFIDAVIT in question which is asserted by YOUR WORSHIP not to conform to reality. After my legal rights were actively being blocked and my ability to give full answer for matter 3160-8271152B was nullified in contravention the Charter and parliamentary legislation, I mailed my uncommission Affidavit along with relevant motions to the Prosecutor and Provincial Court-REGISTRAR at 5 Ray Lawson byway of government priority mail (MD 053 853 270 CA, MD 053 853 252 CA) which requires a signature. The aforesaid cost me $60.00 for two large envelops. The two packages were received at the same Court house without signatures given for receipt even though that is the service I was paying for. On May 21, 2013 I was about 10 minutes late; when I got to the court B4 it was being locked up at 10:45 am and I was informed by the prosecutor that I was convicted while still not having received disclosure (Brief package) from the prosecutor or process being found on the relevant information. This is how the prosecution wins its cases pursuant to its most practical demonstration above.
[28] On or about July 3, 2012, formal REQUISITION FOR DISCLOSURE was served on the Office of the Prosecutor on the second floor against their insistence on not receiving service, to which there has been no response!
[29] On or about July 3, 2012, formal REQUISITION FOR DISCLOSURE was served on the Office of the Prosecutor on the second floor against their insistence on not receiving service, to which their has been no response!
[30] On or before October 26, 2012, the Crown failed to disclose the court materials it relied on for the appeal to my person. The said appeal respondent documents are still pending.
[31] On October 26, 2012, the Prosecutor who had carriage and control of my matter tried to cross examine me without the attendance of counsel or the opportunity to retain an advocate, so I could give informed responses to herself incrimination questions.
[32] In the face of the afore said infringement of my rights with regards to self-incrimination, I refereed the said Prosecutor to my filed court documents; she threaten to put me last on the list even-though I had been waiting all morning, the aforesaid is just what the said Prosecutor did. The Crown utterly failed to disclose the court materials it relied on for the appeal. Please see EXHIBIT C-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT B-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[33] On two other occasions after the first REQUISITION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE, I formal served a REQUISITION FOR DISCLOSURE on the Office of the Prosecutor, to which their has been no response! I made my request in the following manner;
“I Wayne Ferron, require disclosure of right disclosed to me ASAP and further disclosure disclosed to my person, mainly;
1. CROWN'S BRIEF for Offence Number : 8271152B;
2. ALL OFFICERS NOTES FOR MATTER for Offence Number : 8271152B;
3. ALL WITNESSES WILSAY STATEMENTS FOR MATTER for Offence Number : 8271152B;
4. ALL AUDIO AND VIDEO EVIDENCE for Offence Number : 8271152B;
5. TRANSCCRIPT OF TRIAL FOR MATTER for Offence Number : 8271152B;
6. CERTIFIED COPY OF MATERIALS FILED FOR APPEAL HEARING FOR 26 OF OCTOBER 2012, for Offence Number : 8271152B. «
Please see EXHIBIT C-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT B-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[34] It should be noted that the presiding Honourable Justice of the Peace on December 5th, 2012 while he was in the process of setting the May 21, 2013 Trial Date, did briefly discuss the issue of disclosure in addressing the Prosecutor. The Crown has failed to act on the aforesaid disclosure issue. Please see EXHIBIT C-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT B-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[35] Pursuant to the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE-Registrar at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, I was convicted and fined $110.00 for TRESPASSING.
[36] This in essence is conviction at a hearing which I was not in attendance in addition to not being given proper notice nor reasonable notice in contravention of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, in contravention of NATURAL JUSTICE, in contravention of THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and in contravention of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. Please see EXHIBIT C-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT B-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[37] The staff at the Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Office, at 5 Ray Lawson Blvd; refuse to disclose my Court file Number for the same conviction in addition to the name of the presiding Justice or the name of the Crown Prosecutor or any other information associated with conviction other than “you already have been convicted;” Not even the date for the hearing or my conviction date was disclosed.
[38] Neither the Crown nor any of it’s relevant staff, nor even the Prosecutor’s Office disclosed information concerning the trial and conviction at Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Office, at 5 Ray Lawson Blvd.
[39] The Prosecutor Office refused on more than two occasion to disclosed the necessary information to appeal the Trespass Conviction(3160-8271152B ). Please see EXHIBIT C-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT B-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[40] The staff at 5 Raylawson kept asking my person for information they refused to disclose (court file number, conviction date, presiding judge, information, Brief, etc...). Please see EXHIBIT C-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT B-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[41] Similarly the Registrar at 5 Raw Lawson refused on more than two occasion necessary information for filing an appeal; I was sent between the two said offices for a total of four times. This was done even-though a formal REQUISITION FOR DISCLOSURE was served on the Office of the Prosecutor on the second floor.
[42] Again I say, the court administration refused to give me any information with respect to my conviction without notice of trial.
[43] Even after pleading with the court staff that the information is a requirement for filing a proper Appeal.
[44] After being sent back and forth from the Prosecutor’s Office on the second floor to the Information Office on the first floor for total of two trips to the Information Office and two trips to the Prosecution’s Office in addition to being required to wait in queues, I served upon the Prosecution’s Office my modified formal requisition for disclosure on or about July 3, 2012, to which there has been no response!
[45] This occurrence (3160-8271152B) started on the 5th of April 2012, when I went to the GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, to file appeals of right with lieu of mandamus from the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, within the territorial jurisdiction of Ontario, where the criminal matters at issue took place and the allege crimes were committed, against the dismissal of my Informations by the lower courts.
[46] On the same date and location, Clerk(Stephanie) of the CROWN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE on the fifth floor ignored my person for about 10 minutes, then went to serve another person waiting for service who came after myself in the queue. I alerted her to her action and she proceeds to served me forthwith.
[47] Clerk (Stephanie) refused service on my document for reasons only she knows. I asked for the same Clerk to justify her refusal, for as far as I know I was following the process the Criminal Code lays out in Section 507.1, Section 813(b), in addition to the Criminal Procedure Rules 43.04 for appealing the dismissal of Information.
[48] I truly believe that I was doing that which the will of Parliament require or directs for an appeal. An originating process always starts with a NOTICE, errors can always be amended.
[49] I ask the same Clerk if I could speak to her supervisor or someone who can give me legal justification for the refusal of my NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPEAL documents; she agreed.
[50] An assistance Crown Attorney came after a long wait to address the matter. He said that while review my documents in his hand;
“you cannot appeal a pre-enquette, you must refile the information!”
[51] I advised him that there is case law for “pre enquette” being appealed all the way up to and including the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL(there is actually case law all the way to the SUPREME COURT). So I request of him to justify the refusal of the legal service using the Criminal Code, but justification pursuant to CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS would have sufficed.
[52] I boldly asserted to the same assistance Crown Attorney;
“that one cannot make things up as they go along and we all must work within the constraints of the law.”
[53] The same assistance Crown Attorney asked or asserted for me to leave or else he will call court security, without a legal articulation of refusal of my NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL documents, within the context of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA while the OFFICE OF THE CROWN’S ATTORNEY was excepting service of other individual’s court documents in contravention of Section 1. of the Human Rights Act. Please see EXHIBIT C-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT B-3160-8271152B, EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[54] The Court-Registrar does not except filing of documents which are not served on the opposing parties for obvious reasons concerning NATURAL JUSTICE and FAIRNESS, this is common knowledge.
[55] Similarly, on the date I was filing my Mandamus Appeal with a constitutional component and in relation to CR-12-00001912, the CLERK IN CHARGE of the REGISTRAR of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE asserted on more than one occasions that I cannot appeal a pre-enquette or private-information; moreover, we argued about it for about 30 minutes and she forced or coerce a scheduling time of two days for the matter to be placed before a SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE(Justice Durno), for the purpose of informing me that what she was advising was indeed the case.
[56] I had to return to the REGISTRAR after leaving the Brampton courthouse and insist that a returnable date for my NOTICE OF APPEAL (CR-12-00001912) to be spoken to, be at lease two weeks or a month, which is a proper notification according to the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; this was a fact I had placed before the same REGISTRAR.
[57] The aforementioned matter(CR-12-00001912) was placed before the Honourable Justice Druno; however he didnot advise or direct me that the same appeal was not legally possible, which is contrary to what the SUPERIOR COURT-REGISTRAR was advising my person when they were insisting on not receiving my NOTICE OF APPEAL(CR-12-00001912) document.
[58] Furthermore, the following document DIGITALLY SIGNED by the Honourable Justice Durno, which I obtain from a CLERK is posted at the SUPERIOR COURT-REGISTRAR for all to see and follow. Please see EXHIBIT TOU1.
[59] On the 5th of April 2012 the said assistance Crown Attorney, called security and they arrested my person while I was trying to effect a legal service of a NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPEAL for Information’s which did-not fine process in accordance with CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA; which was refused without articulated legal justification.
[60] On the same day I was arrested at 11:57 a.m., on 2012-04-05 by William Kristy(1606) for allege violation of Section 2(1)(b) of the TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT OF ONTARIO, at location 3160 under Offence Number 8271152B. Please see EXHIBIT TOU3.
[61] Imagine that, a Canadian is arrested for trying to effect his right of appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction in a public institution which declares “WELCOME” in Latin.
[62] Furthermore, asking for legal justification or articulated reason for the denial of my rights by way of legal service of a notification of an appeal-of-right from the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE for legal matters within the jurisdictional territory of Ontario and under the jurisdictional authority of the Provence of Ontario.
[63] I was not read my RIGHTS nor was I given the opportunity to instruct LEGAL COUNCIL forthwith in accordance with of Section 10 of the Criminal Code of Canada nor was I subjected to due process of law as the will of Parliament demands.
[64] I requested to speak to a lawyer on more than one occasion, but I was not provided one nor given the opportunity to retain one before uninformed discussions or interrogation.
[65] The aforesaid was done even though DUTY COUNSEL was located next door in the adjacent room or two rooms in the southerly direction.
[66] While in the elevators (taken from 5th to 1st floor), I demanded to know what I was being arrested for and what Section of the Criminal Code was being used. Please see EXHIBIT TOU3.
[67] I had to ask many times while in handcuffs and under the carriage and control of Officers of PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, until I made the statement;
“so the arrest is arbitrary, since you cannot state which law I am violating?”
Please see EXHIBIT TOU3.
[68] Finally when we reached about the 1st floor coming from the 5th floor, one of the Officer’s said I was being arrested for TRESPASSING. So I was arrested and handcuff before a reasonable case for my arrest was determined. Please see EXHIBIT TOU3.
[69] After making the aforesaid statement, I stated clearly and directly that I was invoking my right to silence but the officers kept pushing with their questions. Furthermore, my person was searched, my belongings was searched and the Officer spend a long time going through my phone history, phone log with neither a notice of my legal rights nor a search warrant nor the application of my rights being administered to forthwith, despite the fact that DUTY COUNSEL was located next door in the adjacent room or two doors to the south.
[70] The Officer-who-seemed-to-be-in-charge fondle my cellphone like it was his own, intimately scanning through personal information which was not his own, which did-not belong to him and which he did-not have a right or granted express permission to be handled by his unwanted touch.
[71] I felt sick to my stomach, violated, as though something very dear and precious had been taken away from me while the Officer was “data mining” my cell phone, the entire time I was in custody in a closed room with two Officers.
[72] I felt violated as my private information was “raped “ from my personal belongings and my personal phone without a search warrant and without being duly notified of my LEGAL RIGHTS and have them effected forthwith, despite the fact that DUTY COUNSEL was located next door in the adjacent room or two rooms to the south.
[73] The Officer-who-seemed-to-be-in-charge and was fondling my cellphone deleted an audio file from the same phone’s memory without the express permission of my person or the Public, whom had colour of right to the said device respectively.
[74] The aforesaid is a similar feeling I felt when Officer Pekeski(2261) on the 25th of August 2011 stole my personal belongings. Yes stole because he confiscated them and failed to return them at the Brampton Civic Hospital. I have been denied enjoyment of my property, even though I have expressed my colour of right over them.
[75] The thing most precious to my person was my small thick pink and purple notebook, which contained scribbles of some poems I was writing; these precious gems containing my feelings and emotions articulated into rhythmic and metaphoric phrases, were ripped away from my person.
[76] My uncompleted poetry unceremoniously severed from my attached heart and never to be seen or allowed to be completed, even though I had colour of right to the material in question.
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MS. JOANNE STUART CRIMES
[77] The evidence refused at the PRE-ENQUETE, is evidence to the contrary of Ms. Stuart assertion on more than one occasions without investigation before the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that TRANSCRIPTS(07-0559) for MATTER C 51190 would take at least 2 years to produce. Ms. Joanne Stuart states in her May 14, 2010 letter on page 4 at the second last paragraph, four months after Justice Gillese issued her Court Order;
“As you may recall, my initial concern with these transcripts from the summary Conviction Appeal Court was whether there would even be recordings made of these appearances from which transcripts could be produce...”
[78] The afore said took place a couple of days after Justice Lanskin refused to hear the MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE (C 51190/ M38706), even though I had already orally given Ms. Joanne Stuart my agreement to an adjournment on consignment asper her request, BYWAY of the REGISTRAR, because she need more time to review the matter.
Please see EXHIBIT PQ1 , JUSTICE LANSKIN ENDORSE, EXHIBIT PQ2.
[79] Ms. Joanne Stuart stole or confiscated my FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST without my express permission, in addition to failing to forward the same request to the proper owner (“HEAD” of the MINISTERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL). The following is a copy of the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, stamped receives on June 9, 2010 by the MINISTERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. Please see EXHIBIT PS6.
[80] Ms. Joanne Stuart at a later date returned the five dollar check which accompanied the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST after improperly procuring Justice Watt's Court Order, minus the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST after FALSELY asserting to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, that she had returned the same $5.00 check address to the Minister of Finance
[81] In addiction to misleading the same court which Justice Watt presided over, Ms. Stuart improperly obtain a court order against my person for contested issues. Ms. Joanne Stuart asserts in her August 31, 2010 letter;
“My apologies for the delay in returning it to you and for indicating to the Court that it had been returned to you already.”
After my credibility was called into question by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, and integrity was willfully diminished while being forced to file a replacement FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request with additional funds, moreover the Crown already receive a COURT ORDER from Justice Watt in their favor at my expense of my legal rights and integrity. Please see EXHIBIT PS2, and EXHIBIT justice watt endorsement.
[82] Pursuant to Ms. Tanya Pineapple, the MINISTERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL denied ever receiving the aforesaid FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, in addition to counter requesting that I must file a new FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST with another new $5.00 check. Ms. Tanya Pineapple, states as follows in her letter, last paragraph;
“I have contacted the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COORDINATOR for the MINISTRY about your appeal. The Ministry has advise that, as of August 5, 2010, it does not any record of your freedom of information request...”
Please see EXHIBIT PS3.
[83] After the willful diminishing of my credibility, and integrity; I filed a replacement FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request as requested by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL and supported by the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION which was stamped received on August 24, 2010 by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Please see EXHIBIT PS2, PS3, PS4, and PS5.
[84] I personally served on the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL a new FREEDOM OF INFORMATION for pending disclosure of right from the lower courts and request for further disclosure; which was stamped received by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL on October 8, 2010. Please see EXHIBIT PS7.
[85] Ms. Joanne Stuart refused to disclosed to my person, pending disclosure of right from 2007 and onward. The crown asserts in EXHIBIT R2 on page 168 at the end of the last paragraph;
“In my view of this, it is the Crown's position that there in nothing further to disclose.”
Please see EXHIBIT R2.
[86] Ms. Janet Roland, and Analyst of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, disclosed much of the material Ms. Joanne Stuart asserted did not exist or refused to disclose byway of a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST/APPEAL against the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES at the retirement of the old Chief and the installment of a new Chief of Police.
Please see EXHIBIT NB1.
[87] Ms. Janet Roland, and Analyst of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, fresh evidence disclosure showed that the Information(07-02500) was sworn under a false name on two different dates, and the replacement Information (07-02559) was sworn after RECONIZEANCE (07-02500) was entered into, in addition to AUDIO CD EVIDENCE being receded by the Crown without reasonable notification to the accuse of matter 07-02500.
Please see EXHIBIT NB1, NB2, PPL, PPQ EXHIBIT C4.
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MR. MATTHEW ASMA CRIMES
[88] Ms. Joanne Stuart's August 31, 2010 letter asserts that disclosed TRANSCRIPTS (07-02559/c511190) will be certified; she asserts in her August 31, 20010 letter as follows on the first page in the first paragraph;
“Please note that certified copies of these transcripts will be included in your Appeal Book which the Crown is preparing on your behalf.”
Please see EXHIBIT PS2.
[89] Mr. Matthew Asma March 4, 2011 letter asserts that;
“It appears that Ms. Downer simply forgot to sign the last page of the transcript.”
Please see EXHIBIT PT.
[90] Mr. Matthew Asma March 29, 2011 letter asserts that in the last paragraph on page 149;
“You have a copy of the Appeal Book. Justice McPherson endorsed on February 7, 2011, the Appeal Book is fine. I am confident that you have true copies of the transcripts of audio recording...”
Please see EXHIBIT PT.
[91] Ms. Ann-Marie Santiago October 17, 2011 letter asserts that in the last paragraph on page 174;
“...Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Law Office – Criminal , enclosed copies of the court transcripts, and corresponding whereby you confirm receipt of 7 transcripts on September 6, 2010.”
Please see EXHIBIT PC.
[92] Yet Mr. Asma file uncertified January 18, 2008 uncertified Transcripts (C51190/07-02559) to be used as certified in a criminal process as real evidence; the same transcript showed that the trial for 07-02251 was prosecuted and ruled upon without parliamentary authority in addition to information (07-02500/07-02559) insurance of process relying on a false oath and a false Officer (B Hird) whom act in the capacity of an informant, which does not exist at bar.
[93] It was while filing an appeal from the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE for dismissed informations against MS. Stuart and Mr. Asma for the above mentions crimes that I was arrested (3160-8271152B ).
[94] I attempted to appeal the aforesaid matter in a Brampton SUPERIOR COURT because I lived in Mississauga and financial bankrupt and need a close enough SUPERIOR COURT that I could walk to.
[95] I was arrested at 11:57 am, on 2012-04-05 by William Kristy(1606) for allege violation of Section 2(1)(b) of the TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT OF ONTARIO, at location 3160 under Offence Number 8271152B while trying to file and Appeal for dismissed Informations against Mr. Matthew Asma, Ms. Joanne Stuart and others.
[96] I was arrested at 11:57 am, on 2012-04-05 by William Kristy(1606) for allege violation of Section 2(1)(b) of the TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT OF ONTARIO, at location 3160 under Offence Number 8271152B while trying to file and Appeal of right for dismissed Informations against Mr. Matthew Asma, Ms. Joanne Stuart and others.
INFORMANT (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B)
[97] I Wayne Ferron, is the accused named in matter associated with Court File Number: 3160-8271152B and for Offense: 8271152B at location 3160.
[98] I Wayne Ferron, is the accused named in matter associated with Court File Number: 3160-8271152B and for Offence: 8271152B at location 3160; was convicted at Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offenses Office, 5 Ray Lawson Blvd, without any reasonable notice of Trial, without the disclosing of materials the PROSECUTION relied on for my conviction, and without reasonable notification of my conviction. Nor was I given reasonable opportunity to defend myself or give full answer in accordance with Section 7. of the Charter or the Section 2(e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS. In short, there was a blatant denial of PRECEDURAL FAIRNESS RIGHTS which is supposed to be observed with the application of civilized practice of law.
[99] Furthermore, after my said conviction on TREASSPASSING ON COURT PROPERTY(3160-8271152B ), for filing legal required court documents for an appeal of right (NOTICE OF APPEAL) at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE CROWN'S Office, I was denied the name of the presiding JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, the name of the PROSECUTOR, the date of the conviction, and any and all disclosure associated with the relevant matter.
[100] Pursuant to the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE-Registrar at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE I was convicted and fined $110.00 for TRESPASSING. This in essence is conviction at a hearing which I was not in attendance in addition to not being given proper notice or reasonable notice in contravention of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, in contravention of NATURAL JUSTICE, in contravention of THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and in contravention of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.
[101] On the 5th of April 2012 an assistance Crown Attorney of the Region of Peel Crown’s Attorney’s Office, called security which arrested my person while I was in the process of trying to effect a legal service of a NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPEAL for Information’s which did-not find process in accordance with CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, which was refused without articulated lawful justification.
[102] On the aforesaid day I was arrested at 11:57 am., on 2012-04-05 by William Kristy(1606) for allege violation of Section 2(1)(b) of the TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT OF ONTARIO, at location 3160 under Offence Number 8271152B. Imagine that, A Canadian arrested for trying to affect his right of appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction in a public institution which declares “WELCOME” to all who has business in HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN'S COURTS, except for me of course.
[103] The aforesaid was done because I dare to ask for legal justification or articulated reason for the denial of my rights by way of legal service of a notification of an appeal-of-right from the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE for legal matters within the jurisdictional territory of Ontario and under the jurisdictional authority of the Provence of Ontario, involving crimes committed within the territory of Ontario.
[104] I was not read my RIGHTS nor was I given the opportunity to instruct LEGAL COUNCIL forthwith in accordance with Section 10 of the Criminal Code of Canada, nor was I subjected to due process of law as the will of Parliament demands for Court File Number: 3160-8271152B(Offence: 8271152B)
[105] I requested to speak to a lawyer on more than one occasion, but I was not provided one nor given the opportunity to retain one before uninformed discussions and interrogation. The aforesaid was done to my person even though DUTY COUNSEL was located next door in the adjacent room or two rooms in the southerly direction.
[106] While in the elevators (taken from 5th to 1st floor), I demanded to know what I was being arrested for and what Section of the Criminal Code was being used to justify my arrest.
[107] I was forced to ask many times while in handcuffs and under the carriage and control of Officers of the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES to no avail, until I made the statement;
“so the arrest is arbitrary, since you cannot state which law I am violating?”
Finally when I reached about the 1st floor, one of the Officer’s said that I was being arrested for TRESPASSING.
[108] After making the aforesaid statement, I stated clearly and directly that I was invoking my right to silence but the officers kept pushing with their questions.
[109] Furthermore, my person was searched, my belongings was searched and the Officer spend a long time going through my phone history, phone logs with neither a notice of my legal rights nor a search warrant nor the application of my rights being administered to forthwith, despite the fact that DUTY COUNSEL was located next door in the adjacent room or two doors to the south.
[110] TAKE NOTICE: I Wayne Ferron the Informant have been repetitively and continuously subjected to non-uniform discriminatory practices which serves no other purpose but to frustrate my private prosecutions, to drive a reasonable layperson from “the seat of judgment”, and to impeded or obstruct a fair and equitable application of justice for my private informations in contravention of Section 1. of the Human Rights Act, Section 15. of the Charter, Section 1.(a), Section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights, and Section 504/507.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA; the aforesaid runs contrary to the will of parliament and the rule of law and is abusive, in my unprofessional legal view. In short, the above stated crimes are legal fraud.
[111] When one serve on the Crown’s Attorney’s Office court documents to be filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, the original copy is to be filed with the Court-Registrar and is commonly endorsed as being received while the other copies are stamped received; this is proof of service as required by Criminal and Civil Procedures. I am continually being discriminatingly denied this service which others enjoy and have no problems in receiving.
[112] Contrastingly, at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, my court file copy of required COURT documents served and filed by my person are no longer endorse by the Crown’s Office(Given Justification Security reason). When I asked for the name of the Clerk receiving the same court documents to produce and file an affidavit of service, my request is refused for security reasons. This is in contrast to the Clerks for the Attorney General for Ontario and Attorney General for Canada receiving and endorsing my court documents and in addition to an affidavit of service lacking important details or elements being easily challenged and defeated.
[113] When I first tried to file my private information (CR-12-00001912) on August 26, 2011, I was arrested and falsely imprisoned as a mentally diseased individual(for 13 DAYS).
[114] When I tried to filed appeals for other informations, I was arrested for trespassing (Offence: 8271152B) and convicted without proper notice and the application of my legal rights being administered to.
[115] All I want is a level playing field for legal adversarial arguments to show merits to my pleadings without harassment and impediments.
[116] Not only am I impecunious, but I am also a human being, and I also have rights of a human being and I am also a Canadian summarily invoking those right under the Charter, the Human Rights Act, the Bill of Rights Act, and the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS for none discriminatory or equal legal services by State Institutions.
[117] Pursuant to the SUPREME COURT decision in McKay v. Manitoba;
“Charter decisions should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum. To attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter and inevitably result in ill-considered opinions. The presentation of facts is not, as stated by the respondent, a mere technicality; rather, it is essential to a proper consideration of Charter issues. A respondent cannot, by simply consenting to dispense with the factual background, require or expect a court to deal with an issue such as this in a factual void. Charter decisions cannot be based upon the unsupported hypotheses of enthusiastic counsel. “
(McKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357 , page 7)
Please see EXHIBIT TOU3.
[119] The aforesaid policy has been fragrantly and blatantly violated in relation to or within the context of my PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROCEDDINGS, Appeals, and CIVIL MATTERS. My adversarial legal opponents seek to band me from exercising my LEGAL RIGHTS, my CIVIL RIGHTS, and my CHARTER RIGHTS, at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, since my claims and allegations cannot be disproved nor is there any evidence to the contrary. In short, denying my person my LEGAL RIGHT which all other CANADIANS enjoy is the only way to defeat my just claims and allegation and prevent a lawfully just resolution to the matters before the court.
POVERTY /ACCESS TO JUSTICE
[120] Immediately upon becoming homeless, I went to the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, located in the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL in the city of Mississauga, to seek out emergency shelter. The REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, blatantly refused my person access to the same publicly funded facility which provides short term services for people from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER needs.
[121] I was homeless, impecunious, and financially destitute. It seems that this is the way court cases or won, by way of “civil death”, social warfare, and denial of all the things the BILL OF RIGHTS and Section 7. Of the Charter guarantees (life, liberty, security, and the pursuit of happiness).
[122] On September 1st, 2012 I went to 2500 Cahra Rd in the Region of Peel, in the City of Mississauga at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, for help AT ABOUT 11:00 P.M..
[123] On September 1st, 2012 at about 11:00 P.M., it was boldly asserted to my person in clear and distinct language that I was “restricted” from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER and to “leave” the premises without written or oral articulated reasons justifying the said questionable action.
[124] On ward from September 1st, 2012 I spent the nights and days(about 3) homeless on the other side of the road to the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER.
[125] On September 2nd, 2012 at REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, an employee came across the street to inform me that the Manager restricted me and I will have to see the manager before I could be admitted to the same shelter. Moreover, I was advised that the managers would be back after the holidays on 4/09/2012.
[126] On September 5th, 2012 I went to speak to the Manager asper the Intake Clerks at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER. I spoke to two Managers extensively whom neither knew nor was able to articulate the moral or legal justification for restricting my person from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER; while others who had numerous policy infringement were admitted. Moreover, they said I must speak to another manager due in one hour.
[127] On September 5th, 2012 at about 11:00 am., at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, I was advised in clear direct language by the manager, that I (Wayne Ferron) was restricted from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER for a pending action against the region for HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION, in Section 1. Of the same Act. I informed him that I was only suing for $1.00 and for the good of the public; Furthermore, the legal action was on principal of improving the fair treatment of homeless individuals.
[128] I was promptly shown the door even though I advise with a qualification of uncertainty that the action being taken may not be legal, for you cannot hold my legal rights hostage to discriminate against my person within the context of equal and fair services to all Canadians(Section 15 of the Charter). I was promptly shown the door, in fact it was held open for me.
[129] Furthermore, ONTARIO-WORKS HAS NO RECORDS OF MY PERSON BEING RESTRICTED FROM THE REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER; the matter of restriction from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, seem to be arbitrary, frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by revenge in an effort to extract vigilante justice for complaints on HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. It was on September 1st, 2012 which I became homeless.
[130] In my view forcing a person to suffer homelessness when there is access to facilities to help with this said problem is an unlawful act. NOTE AND RECALL, ONTRIO-WORKS HAS NO RECORDS OF MY PERSON BEING RESTRICTED FROM THE REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER. Which infers that the REGION OF PEEL has no record of me being restricted? NONE! I am not even flag for any pass unreasonable acts or acts of omission.
[131] The above incidence made me feel like an undesirable human being, whom was being punished for taking action endorsed by the will of Parliament.
[132] I was made to suffer homelessness, lost of dignity, hunger, and the outside elements for trying to affect my legal rights to bring before a court of competent jurisdiction matters which affect the public good and the public confidence and trust in services involving a civil society. Violation of Parliamentary legislation is to be dealt with by the courts of competent jurisdiction and not by way of vigilante punishment.
[133] I was not given reasonable notice of my RESTRICTION, even though I requested personal information disclosure.
[134] I should have been properly notified of the said RESTRICTION, processed by the intake office, then my application denied for a lawful and moral written articulated justification.
[135] This did not happen! I did not have due process or equal treatment given to citizen belonging to nations which effect civilized practice of law.
[136] The complaint in question is on a matter of principle, the public good, to recognize and acknowledge that homeless people are also people with freedom rights; hopefully in the adjudicative process, the human condition for Canadians my improve, even if it is just a little.
[137] We are social beings, whom must live and interact with each other because of the very nature of who we are. This is a necessary thing for social beings. It make me happy and I feel fulfilled when we are respectful to each other and are Christ like in our treatment of each other.
[138] Again, the complaint in question is on a matter of principles, the public good, to recognize and acknowledge that homeless people are also people with freedom rights; hopefully in the adjudicative process, the human condition for Canadians my improve, even if it is just a little.
[139] On the 23rd of May 2012, the honorable Justice MC Keogh issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS for Officer Achoo(3180) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on May 23, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206.
[140] On the 15th of May 2012, the honorable Justice MC Keogh issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS for Officer Strauss(3604) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on May 23, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206.
[141] On the 15th of May 2012, the honorable Justice MC Keogh issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS for Officer Seville(3547) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on May 23, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206.
[142] On the 15th of May 2012, the honorable Justice MC Keogh issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS for Officer Halyard(3484) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on May 23, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206.
[143] The Informant cannot attest to which witness was present or absent even though he believer’s about three witness was in attendance; however, Crown Attorney X spoke to them;
[144] The 1st Crown council, Crown X(Registrar refused to give name) spoke to the witnesses before the May 23, 2012 hearing; so he can confirm or attest to whom was in attendance and who was-not.
[145] The name of 1st Justice is not known, Justice X(Registrar refused to give name, advise no Appeal...).
[146] The name of 1st Crown is not known, Crown X(Registrar refused to give name, advise no Appeal...).
[147] The Informant cannot attest to which witness was present or absent at the May 23, 2012 hearing, however the Crown Attorney X spoke to the attending witnesses after the hearing was adjourned to July 4, 2012, so he can attest to who was in attendance.
[148] The name of the 2nd Justice, Justice Y(Registrar refused to give name, advise no Appeal...).
[149] The name of the 2nd Crown, Crown Y(Registrar refused to give name, advised no Appeal...).
[150] The date of laying INFORMATION(Dr. Jeffery Handler) is the 3rd of April, 2012.
[151] The “In Formant's SWORN EVIDENCE”, was served on the Crown Attorney on the 18th of May 2012.
[152] The “In Formant's SWORN EVIDENCE”, was filed with the court on 23rd of May 2012 in court.
[153] The Initial Date of the “Pr Banquette” Hearing was on the 23rd of May, 2012.
[154] The 1st adjournment Date of the “Pre Enquette” Hearing was the 4th of July, 2012.
[155] On the 22nd of June 2012, the honorable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Pekeski(2261) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Pekeski(2261) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[156] On the 22nd of June 2012, the honourable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Bachoo(3180) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Bachoo(3180) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[157] On the 22nd of June 2012, the honorable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Strauss(3604) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Strauss(3604) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[158] On the 22nd of June 2012, the honorable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Seville(3547) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Seville(3547) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[159] On the 22nd of June 2012, the honorable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Halfyard(3484) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Halfyard(3484) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[160] On the 22nd of June 2012, the honorable Justice Jeannie I. Anand commissioned my “AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE...,” which she signed and dated as June 22, 2012.
[161] On the 22nd of June 2012, the honorable Justice Jeannie I. Anand commissioned my “AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMANT(WAYNE FERRON),” which she signed and dated as June 22, 2012.
[162] I cannot attest to which witness was present or absent even thought I believe about three witnesses was in attendance on May 23, 2012; however, Crown Attorney X(Registrar refused to give name), spoke to the same witnesses before the hearing so he can confirm to whom was in attendance and whom he advise of the adjournment of the matter from May 23, 2012 to July 4, 2012.
[163] On the 6th of June 2012, the honorable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Pekeski(2261) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Pekeski(2261) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[164] On the 6th of June 2012, the honorable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Bachoo(3180) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Bachoo(3180) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[165] On the 6th of June 2012, the honorable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Strauss(3604) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Strauss(3604) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[166] On the 6th of June 2012, the honorable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Seville(3547) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Seville(3547) failed to appear when called to give evidence.
[167] On the 6th of June 2012, the honourable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Halfyard(3484) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on June 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Halfyard(3484) failed to appear when called to give evidence. THIS IS DISCRIMINATION BY DISTINCTION, designed to steal my legal rights and pervert the course of justice. It is criminal byway of legal fraud.
[168] According to R. v. Edge, 2004 ABPC 55, on page 10, PAR[46] AND para[45];
“[41] In R. v. Brown (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 398 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) August P.C.J. reviewed the case law and concluded at p. 406:
“The following cases as I interpret them, say that it is mandatory for the Justice of the Peace to actually hear the allegations of the informant and if he thinks that it is necessary, his witnesses before he decides if a case has been made out: Murfina v. Sauve et al. (1901), 6 C.C.C. 275, 19 Que. S.C. 51 (Que. Sup. Ct.); Re Parke (1899), 3 C.C.C. 122, 30 O.R. 498 (Ont. H.C.J.); R. v. Smith (1909), 16 C.C.C. 425 (N.S.S.C.); Marsil v. Lanctot (1914), 25 C.C.C. 223, 28 D.L.R. 380, 20 Rev. Leg. 237 (Que. Sup. Ct.); White v. Dunning (1915), 24 C.C.C. 85, 21 D.L.R. 528, 8 Sask. L.R. 76 (Sask. S.C.).
{...}
[45] In R. v. Ingwer (1955), 113 C.C.C. 361 (Ont. H.C.), Chief Justice McRuer found that neither the laying of an information nor the issuing of process has the formalities of a trial for the potential accused. The justice has no right to decide not to issue a warrant or summons or take an information unless he has heard the witnesses that the informant desires to bring forward: Ingwer p. 366.”
[169] There has been an infringement of Section 2(e) of THE BILL OF RIGHTS, which guards my “right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE for the determination of his rights and obligations.” According to Dowson v. R., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 144, on page 148&149, PAR[22] to para[25];
“Montgomery J. concluded that “All criminal proceedings are commenced by the laying of an information. Once proceedings are commenced, the Attorney General may intervene and conduct or stay proceedings.” He relied on The Department of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 116, The Crown Attorneys Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 101, the historical origins of the expression “finding an indictment” in 1886, R.S.C. 1886, c. 174, s. 2, paras. (c.) and (d.), and, amongst others, R. v. Leonard, ex parte Graham (1962), 133 C.C.C. 262, a decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, and the fact that the Attorney General was the “chief law officer for the Crown and the duly constituted public authority charged with the responsibility for the administration of justice in the province.
{...}
(2) Under s. 732.1 the Attorney General has the power to stay proceedings any time after the laying of an information which charges a summary conviction offence. It would be anomalous to deny him this power with respect to indictable offences, especially since he is charged by statute with the ultimate responsibility for the conduct of prosecutions: see The Crown Attorneys Act, ss. 11 and 12.
(3) As Chief law officer of the Crown, the Attorney General has always had the power to control the issue of process in the name of the Crown. His decision is not re viewable by the courts.”
[170] On May 6, 2013, I when to JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, in the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, at 7755 Hurontario st, to have a SUBPOENA commissioned. The honourable Justice of the Peace who commissioned the SUBPEONA against William Kristy(1606) at first instant, directed me to the PROVINCIAL OFFENCE OFFICE at 5 Ray Lawson.
[171] This was the first time after more than a one year, I was able to obtain a certified copy of the Information(8271152B) upon my insistence that a Honourable Justice of the Peace had sent me and in conjunction with the same Justice of the Peace email to the Provincial Offence Office. After about one year of being charged and convicted I received a copy of the Information (8271152B) which gives the courts the jurisdictional authority to convict my person and the crown the legal authority to prosecute my person. That is, trial and conviction in secrecy without reasonable notice or proper disclosure being issued.
[172] There has been a denial or a deprecation of the proper administration of the application of my rights under Section 504, 507, 581.(1), 583, 584, and 585. of the Criminal Code of Canada.
CRIMES IN THE COURTHOUSE(Information 12-77000487 and Information 12-77000488, Court file No.: CR-12-70000061):
[173] Ms. Joanne Stuart took carriage and control of my matter(C51190) at COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, on or about the 14th of May 2010.
[174] Matthew Asma took over carriage and control of my matter(C51190) at COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, on or about 22nd of October 2010.
[175] Matthew Asma promised me a copy of EXHIBIT 2(07-02559) in return for me to release the EXHIBITS(07-02559) for review from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, for matter(C51190) on the 13th of December 2010.
[176] Mr. Matthew Asma filed 3 uncertified January 18, 2008(C51190) Transcripts on the 7th of January in the year 2011 with the COURT OF APPEAL Registrar, and disclosed another copy of the same uncertified Transcript to my person to be used as evidence in a criminal Appeal(C51190) matter at the COURT OF APPEAL.
[177] At an earlier date and time, Ms. Joanne Stuart disclosed a copy of the Crown’s uncertified copy of the Crown’s January 18, 2008(C51190) Transcripts, on or about August 31, 2010 .
[178] Ms. Joanne Stuart, in her August 31, 2010 letter to my person, asserted or assured my person that I would receive a certified copy of the January 18, 2008(C51190) Transcripts in addition to other Transcripts.
[179] On the 7th of February 2011 with the Honorable Justice MacPherson presiding and Mr. Matthew Asma as Crown’s council, I formally inform the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO that the Crown’s filed January 18, 2008(C51190) Transcripts, were not certified.
[180] Mr. Matthew Asma asserted in is 17th of October 2011 letter to the Informant in the following manner;
“ I have confirmed that my office did receive Ms Downer’s
Invoice, and that according to our records it was paid in
full. It appears that Ms. Downer simple forgot to sign the
last page of the Transcript.”
[181] I swore Information 12-77000487 and Information 12-77000488 against Matthew Asma and Joanne Stuart on the 3rd of February 2012 before the Justice of the Peace at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE in the Region of Peel.
[182] The INTAKE OFFICE at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, sent the Information to College Park, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE in the spirit of fairness and impartiality to the unrepresented accuse in addition to the efficient administration of justice if it is the case that best intentions are assumed.
[183] Pursuant to, FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK ;
“PROSECUTORS DISCRETION:
4 THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Decisions to prosecute, stay proceedings or launch an appeal must be made in accordance with legal criteria. Two important principles flow from this proposition. First, prosecution decisions may take into account the public interest,1 but must not include any consideration of the political implications of the decision. Second, no investigative agency, department of government or Minister of the Crown may instruct pursuing or discontinuing a particular prosecution or undertaking a specific appeal. These decisions rest solely with the Attorney General (and his or her counsel). The Attorney General must for these purposes be regarded as an independent officer, exercising responsibilities in a manner similar to that of a judge.
The absolute independence of the Attorney General in deciding whether to prosecute and in making prosecution policy is an important constitutional principle in England and Canada. As the Supreme Court stated in Law Society of Alberta v. Krieger2: “It is a constitutional principle in this country that the Attorney General must act independently of partisan concerns when supervising prosecutor decisions.” In 1925, Viscount Simon, Attorney General of England, made this oft-quoted statement:
I understand the duty of the Attorney-General to be this. He should absolutely decline to receive orders from the Prime Minister, or Cabinet or anybody else that he shall prosecute. His first duty is to see that no one is prosecuted with all the majesty of the law unless the Attorney-General, as head of the Bar, is satisfied that the case for prosecution lies against him. He should receive orders from nobody.3...”
(4, FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK, page 29)
Please see EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).
[184] The honorable Justice N. Rohan asserted the following in May 14, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-00001912) , on page 2 line 1-15;
← “THE COURT: Now just a second now, sir. In situations like this the practice is and correct me, Madam Crown if I’m wrong, that there should be number one, an outside crown and number two, and outside justice of the peace dealing with these matters.
CROWN: I....
THE COURT: That’s - the reason for that being, sir is that the system has to be fair, it has to be fair to you. Both the Crowns here and the justice of the peace deal with police officers on a regular basis and under those circumstances the practice is to bring both an outside justice of the peace to deal with the matters and also an outside Crown - a Crown outside the jurisdiction. so that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”
[185] Similarly, the honourable Justice N. Rohan asserted the following in May 14, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-00001912), on page 2 line 27 - 35;
“THE COURT: ...on the day they’re before a justice and it has to be an outside justice, number one. It has to be outside crown and number two.”
[186] Similarly, the honourable Justice N. Rohan asserted the following in May 14, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-00001912) , on page 3 line 20 - 30;
“THE COURT: ...The system has to be fair to you. Can we establish a new date that’s suitable to this gentleman?
MS PULS:: Yes, your Worship, I agree with your position and just for the record, the Crown would be requesting an out-of-town Crown as well specifically as a result of it being a Peel Regional Police officer that we deal with directly almost on a daily basis.”
[187] Similarly, the honourable Justice MS PULS for the crown asserts the following on May 14, 2012, on page 6 line 15 - 25;
“MS PULS:: Your Worship, I’ll be forwarding in terms of an out-of-town Crown, this information. I’ve already spoken with my deputy, Ms Carrie Stoddart. I’ll confirm with her this date and she’ll ensure that there’s an out-of-town justice of the peace, I’m not sure if there’s an individual on your end that needs to be advised.”
To the contrary, there was no observance of judicial independence or impartiality in the Courts in the Toronto region for INFORMATIONS sent their by a GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, INTAKE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OFFICE.
[188] Mr. Callaghan(a College Park Crown) falsely asserted at the March 6th, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE before the honorable Justice Quamina, that the honorable Justice MacPherson dealt with the allegations in private Information 12-77000487 and private Information 12-77000488 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. I challenge Mr. Callaghan given hearsay evidence as being false or at the least misleading.
[189] The private informations(Information 12-77000487 and Information 12-77000488) were dismissed at the PRE-ENQUETTE Hearing by the Honourable Justice Quamina.
[190] The Honourable Justice Quamina is a College Park Justice of the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE.
[191] Crown’s Counsel Mr. Callaghan who intervened in the capacity of a representative of Her Majesty the Queen, is a College Park Crown representing the Attorney General.
[192] I was not placed under oath nor given the opportunity to delivered my evidence ex-parte, while I was acting in the capacity of Informant and witness at the same PRE-ENQUETTE. The hearing was extremely adversarial.
[193] The Honourable Justice Quamina did not receive the evidence EX-PARTE in accordance with Section 508 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[194] The Honourable Justice Quamina did not receive the evidence UNDER OATH in accordance with Section 507.1 and Section 540 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[195] The Honourable Justice Quamina refused evidence to the contrary in the form of certified court documents and offered testimony under oath to rebutt Mr. Callaghan(a College Park Crown), whom falsely asserted or presented hearsay evidence at the March 6th, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE.
[196] My right to seek justice was taken away with out an opportunity to give admissible evidence and in contravention of Section 2(e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS. My rights were stolen from me.
[197] The PRE-ENQUETTE was an adversarial contentious hearing, in which the Crown was given the floor first and I was expected to argue against its stated premises or position. It was a short preliminary trial based on a false premise and false hearsay evidence which ran contrary to Section 585 and Section 586 of the Criminal Code of Canada for Sufficiency of Charges.
[198] Their was never any charges laid or allegations made against the Court Reporter in question, so weather she committed an act or act of omission was never brought into question and is irrelevant to the the matter before the PRE-ENQUETTE. The charge was for the filling of uncertified transcript under the auspices of being certified for use in a criminal proceeding, not the production of uncertified transcripts. TAKE NOTICE: THAT THIS SAME TRANSCRIPT CONTAINS THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE CROWN WITHDREW INFORMATION 07-02500 ON JANUNARY 18, 2007 AND RENDERED INFORMATION 0702559 NULL AND VOID, BECAUSE 07-025569 DID NOT HAVE ITS OWN PROCESS; SO JURISDICTION WAS LOST OVER THE CHARGES. JANUARY 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(C51190/07-02559) IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE CROWN KNOWS THIS, AND I KNOW THIS FACT!
[199] Pursuant to March 6, 2012 PRE--ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT, at College Park ON PAGE 6 LINE 5-15;
“MR. CALLAGHAN: ...It was carefully canvassed on the record at the Court of Appeal in front of Justice MacPherson. It was determined that the Court Reporter simply forgot to sign the transcript. It was mere inadvertence. The transcript had been paid for, and once it was addressed Justice MacPherson said there is absolutely no issue here. It was merely inadvertence that she forgot to sign the certified copy.”
[200] Pursuant to March 6, 2012 PRE--ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT, at College Park ON PAGE 7 LINE 5-10;
“ MR. CALLAGHAN: ...In the Crown’s respective view, it would be inappropriate to embark on a pre-enquette when this very issue has been carefully considered by the Court of Appeal, and Justice MacPherson made a finding that there was no mala fides, mere inadvertence , and nothing turned on it.”
[201] Pursuant to March 6, 2012 PRE--ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT, at College Park ON PAGE 9 LINE 15-28;
“MR. FERRON: It was never canvassed, and I challenge him to give me proof. I was there.
THE COURT: Sir, did the Justice -- did Justice MacPherson canvass the issue?
MR. FERRON: No, he did not.
THE COURT: Just one second. Mr. Crown?
MR. CALLAGHAN: I can indicate I was in contact with the counsel who appeared at that proceeding, who provided with me information that this very issue of the Crown filing a transcript that was not certified, because it was not signed, was dealt with in the Court.”
[202] Pursuant to March 6, 2012 PRE--ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT, at College Park ON PAGE 12 LINE 18-25;
“MR. FERRON: I would like to take the stand. I was there. I was a witness in the courtroom that --
THE COURT: Sir, we are not going to do that today.
MR. FERRON: He was not --
THE COURT: Mr. --
MR. FERRON: He was not in the courtroom”
[203] Pursuant to March 6, 2012 PRE--ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT, at College Park ON PAGE 13 LINE 18-25;
“ MR. FERRON: I have given a whole book of evidence stamped by the Crown so -- and there is material here I have from the Court of Appeal, copied, certified. This is the Court’s copy. It’s --
THE COURT: Sir --
MR. FERRON: It’s certified, of what we are speaking about.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FERRON: Evidence. Concrete evidence, factual, not that the Crown said that this happened. He was not there. I was there.”
[204] The following is my account of what took place before the honourable Justice MacPherson on February 7, 2011 in the inmate appeal courtroom at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. I advised the honourable MacPherson that January 18, 2009 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(07-02559/C51190) filed with the same Court Registrar was not certified and may constitute theft or infringement of a court reporter’s copy right.
[205] The presiding honourable learned COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Judge kept quiet on the above point, he kept steering the proceeding away from the issue of theft and authenticity that the Applicant had brought forward concerning uncertified Transcripts which are served in duplicates of five and filed as identical triplicates certified copies!
[206] In any event, the learned COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Justice did not ask me;
1. to show the offending documents to the Crown for review;
2. for him to see the offending documents for review;
3. nor did he ask the Clerk of the Inmate Appeal Court, if he could review the same documents at issue, served and file in triplicates to the Registrar at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, for the Panel, as reliable evidence for the Applicant’s Appeal.
[207] In short, there was no affirming or confirmation of the allegation at issue. It was just ignored, even-though this is part of the real evidence the Court, the Crown, and I was relying on at the Hearing of the Appeal.
[208] The presiding Justice should have confirm for himself, the Court, and the public, the truthfulness of the Allegations placed before him or disprove it out rightly or give the Crown a chance to show evidence to the contrary. The prudent thing to do would be to affirm the allegation or dismiss the allegation and do whatever the Court is required to do to remedy the situation pursuant to the presiding Justice Jurisdiction and the criminal code of Canada. Not only is the aforesaid criminal, but it an attempt to steal my legal rights, an infringement of the court reporter’s constitutional right to profit from their profession, is an violation of the copyright of the same court document, and a perversion of the course of justice. In short, it is a key piece of evidence which has been suppressed to deny me the ends of justice.
[209] Similarly, on February 7, 2011 in the inmate appeal courtroom at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, the Applicant advised the the Court that MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE(C51190/38706) was still outstanding.
[210] Furthermore, it was adjourned since May 14, 2010 and the disclosures in-question was promised to him by the lower Courts. I also asked about, determination of the issues or an endorsement in regards to Motion(C51190/38706). The learned ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL Justice advised my person that all he needed was the present (Feb 7, 2011) Court Order; there was no need for Further Disclosure and Further Transcripts and he asserted that I was “not going to get anything else.”
[211] The honourable presiding Justice unilaterally made his order and asked if I would be using the Duty Counsel or representing my. The Applicant said, I will be representing myself. Justice MacPherson, not only perfected the Leave to Appeal without any regard for Rights and Freedoms of the Court Reporters or authenticity of the real evidence. But, the concerns of the Applicant was not taken into consideration nor one single page of 108 pages of filed and served position on contested issues was reviewed in a meaningful way.
[212] The honorable learned presiding Ontario Court Judge made is determination or opinion or whatever the case may be in regards to contended Transcript issues, outstanding further disclosure issues, pending Motion (C51190/M38706 from May 14, 2010), without the benefit of a fair hearing on the balance of probabilities. He issued is adjudication or direction or opinion or whatever the case may be on important contested issues which has a dramatic effect on the “Leave to Appeal” without the benefit of weighing the opposing arguments of the contended issues in the legal scale of Justice, and endorsed the APPEAL BOOK(C51190) as follows;
“ Typed version of handwritten endorsement
R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)
MacPherson J.A.
February 7, 2011
The appeal book prepared by the Crown is fine.
The appeal is adjourned to April 11, 2011 for adjournment of the appellant’ application for leave to appeal.
Mr. Ferron intends to argue the leave application without the assistance of duty counsel.”
(MacPherson J.A., February 7, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))
[213] Pursuant to the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, RULE 4.01 states as follows on page 53 and 54;
“Relationship to the Administration of Justice
4.01 The Lawyer as Advocate
(2) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall
(e) knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct,
(f) knowingly misstate the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the substance of an argument, or the provisions of a statue or like authority,
(g) knowingly assert as true a fact when its truth cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence or as a matter of which notice may be taken by the tribunal,
(h) deliberately refrain from informing the tribunal of any binding authority that at the lawyer considers to be directly on point and that has not been mentioned by an opponent,
(I) dissuade a witness from giving evidence or advise a witness to be absent,
(j) knowingly permit a witness or party to be presented in a false or misleading way or to impersonate another,
(K) needlessly abuse, hector, or harass a witness,...”
|
Sworn before me at the City of Brampton
in the Regional Municipality of Peel, on
the ....................... day of June 2013.
|
|
|
Wayne Ferron(Appellant) |
|
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits (or as may be) |
|
|
|
EXHIBITS
OF WAYNE FERRON(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR)
EXHIBIT B-3160-8271152B:
His Worship Donald Dundar, gave me his card upon my request when he directed me to seek commissioning of my SUBPEONA at the PROVINCIAL OFFENCE COURT at 5 Ray Lawson; in addition to me informing YOUR WORSHIP that the court support staff refuse to give me proper serve for disclosure or any information pertaining to court file number 31-8271152B to affect my appeal against a conviction I had no knowledge of. The card blow is the professional card given to my person by Justice Donald Dundar.
The week before, on May 6, 2013, I when to JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE(A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE), to have a SUBPOENA commissioned. The honourable Justice of the Peace, His Worship Donald Dundar who commissioned the SUBPEONA against William Kristy(1606) at first instant, directed me to the PROVINCIAL OFFENCE OFFICE at 5 Ray Lawson.
There are no posts in this folder...
- 613 reads