Sidebar

07
Wed, Dec

The Creator and Founder of the Website Asks For Any Donations of Metal Iron Plates and Marble (dolomite) - (news flash)

Typography
  • Smaller Small Medium Big Bigger
  • Default Helvetica Segoe Georgia Times

On February 21, 2011 when I was arrested for publishing and sharing a mobbing research article that involves a list of people "hitting back" by committing terrible crimes and Marc Lepine. The defense lawyer that I was introduced to told me that following a demand that I remain incarcerated for a psychological evaluation by the Police that I had no choice but to remain incarcerated for 30 days. Even after explaining ..

.. that I had a website on the issue of psychological harassment, bullying, mobbing, and that this was a published article on CNN iReport he told me that I had written an article about Marc Lepine and people who write articles about these terrible crimes tend to do the same .... I was assaulted with powerful radar and radiation technology linked to deadly cancers throughout the long and delayed criminal proceedings in my own home, public places, and court house. I was acquitted on June 4, 2012 and now involved in a human rights complaint and civil lawsuit that involves the freedom of expression, which is vital for a democracy and the pursuit of the truth and constitutional questions, the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial that circumvents the right to a trial and warrantless seizures of private computers. see the Danny Hunt (mobbing) page for more. Received donations will be mentioned on this page.

The long and delayed criminal proceeding costs and the materials that were purchased in attempts to attenuate, shield, and protect me from the radar assaults during this period of time were both expensive and created a large financial debt.. The radar assaults continue along with other forms of pressure to discontinue attempts to recover this financial loss from false allegations and attempts to address laws that violate the constitution, our rights and freedoms.

The donations are to attenuate powerful radar from neighboring homes.

Please leave any donations in the drive way at:

Danny Hunt

558 Felix

Laval Quebec

H7P3E3

tel/fax: 450-622-7117

Radar attenuation and shielding, what I'm doing. I'm using steal plate 2' x 4' and painting these with different white paint that contain titanium, magnesium (talc), barium (barytes), hard enamel. I've created (lead, granite or slate or marble, aluminum tape/foil) 12" x 12" panels. Marble (dolomite aka MgCa(CO3)2) is another good powerful radar or cosmic radiation attenuator or shielding material. Water bottles with shredded green leaves Mg (wet foliage), sea and epsom salts, these shield from both radar and focused ultrasound aka Hypersonic Sound or LRAD type of technology systems used from neighboring homes. Research documents say Magnesium Alloys (MgZn) are one if not the best attenuators but magnesium alloys are very hard to find, as if they were banned from the market.


 

Non-Criminal Responsibility Before Trial

Non-criminally responsible before trial is like being found guilty of the criminal allegations without a trial but not criminally responsible due to mental illness. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights charters specify that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial, non-criminal responsibility before trial circumvents this.

DECLARE that assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial that can circumvent the right to a trial and charter violation issues presented at trial to be unconstitutional, violates section 7, 9, 11(b), 11(d), and section 15;

DECLARE that the warrantless seizure of private computers is unconstitutional, violates section 8;

DECLARE that fabricating criminal allegations of uttering threats in a published research article to be unconstitutional, violates section 2(b);

NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c. 3rd (August 27, 2012)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-834413

 

CANADA

PROVINCE DE QUEBEC

DISTRICT DE LAVAL

Numéro du greffe : 540

No: 540-17-005409-122

No: 540-01-048499-118

No: LVL-110221-041

Superior COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL COURT)

__________________________________________

DANNY HUNT;

Demander

v.

Attorney General of QUEBEC;

-and-

--

-and-

--

Defenders

__________________________________________

NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c.

Destination : Attorney General of Québec

Palais de justice de Montréal

1, rue Notre-Dame Est, bureau 8.00

Montréal (Québec) H2Y 1B6

And.

Deputy Attorney General

Quebec Regional Office

Department of Justice Canada

Guy-Favreau Complex

East Tower, 9th Floor

200 René-Lévesque Boulevard West

Montréal, Québec

H2Z 1X4

And.

--

And.

--

And.

--

TAKE NOTICE that by procedure 94 and articles 24(1) and 52(1) the demander Danny Hunt has the intention of having declared inapplicable constitutionally or invalid in regards to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (chapter C-12) dispositions in the criminal code. Non-criminal responsibility before trial 672.12 (1), 672.12 (1)(3) (a), 672.12 (1)(3)(b) , warrantless seizures of private computers, and 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b) uttering threats for published and shared research articles.

672.12 (1) The court may make an assessment order at any stage of proceedings against the accused of its own motion, on application of the accused or, subject to subsections (2) and (3), on application of the prosecutor.

(3) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility, the court may only order the assessment if

(a) the accused puts his or her mental capacity for criminal intent into issue; or

(b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is criminally responsible for the alleged offence, on account of mental disorder.

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

FURTHER MORE, TAKE NOTICE that the date of audience of this cause is set for 25 September 2012, at 9:00 am, or as soon as the court will permit, in front of one of the Honourable Superior Court Judges, Civil Court, District of Laval, at the Palais de Justice de Laval , in room 2.02.

The pretentions of Danny Hunt and his arguments are to the effect;

[1] THAT Danny Hunt is the creator and founder of the only English website on the issue of psychological harassment that includes workplace psychological harassment, criminal harassment, bullying, mobbing, discrimination, and sexual harassment;

[2] THAT Danny Hunt is a human rights defender and a world leader on these issues;

[3] THAT Danny Hunt published on CNN iReport a Mobbing Research article on February 13, 2011 that involves a list of people “hitting back” by committing terrible crimes linked to the loss of finances, employment, bankruptcy, and homelessness;

[4] THAT in this list Marc Lepine is a strange exception where a suicide note actually states that this link, depleted finances and homelessness, are not the cause of his terrible crime as if Marc Lepine knows the cause of other similar terrible crimes or as if someone else wrote the suicide note to hide the cause, mobbing, the elimination of a person’s means of subsistence and the depletion of finances, and the use of homelessness as a weapon;

[5] THAT on February 21, 2011 Danny Hunt published the same article on CNN iReport with the exception of a parody of Marc Lepine’s suicide note at the top of the Mobbing Research article;

[6] THAT on February 21, 2011 Danny Hunt was arrested and incarcerated by the -- Police after sharing the article in the Facebook CSPAN discussion area;

[7] THAT the -- Police entered and searched the dwelling home of Danny Hunt without a warrant, located his private computers, and seized the private computers for evidence without a warrant;

[8] THAT the criminal charge of uttering threats towards women 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b) on February 21, 2011 is fabricated from the parody in the Mobbing Research article published on February 21, 2011;

[9] THAT the -- Police made a demand that Danny Hunt remain incarcerated for a psychological evaluation based on 1. No criminal record 2. A disability, mental illness 3. A previous incident of non-criminal responsibility in 2003;

[10] THAT following the -- Police demand the Crown made a demand on February 23, 2011 for an assessment order before trial for non-criminal responsibility, which would circumvent the right to a trial if successful;

[11] THAT the February 23, 2011 assessment order before trial for non-criminal responsibility if successful would circumvent the presentation of several charter violation issues at trial such as the freedom of expression, entering and searching a dwelling home without a warrant, seizing private computers and information without a warrant, and make this seizure of private computers and information legal;

[12] THAT on February 23, 2011 Danny Hunt had to agree to conditions and an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial to be released;

[13] THAT Danny Hunt had discussed his innocence and did not want an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility;

[14] THAT a criminal harassment network led him to believe that he had caused the death of a teammate in the Club de Natation Laval when a minor, a girl, which he reported to the Surete du Quebec in 2003;

[15] THAT the girl was found alive but did not have a twin brother as Danny Hunt remembers and when he persisted with his claim and belief that this was the wrong person it resulted in allegations of criminal mischief, which Danny Hunt sees as a form of setup by this criminal harassment network;

[16] THAT Danny Hunt has endured different forms of attacks from this criminal harassment network that he documents on the Psychological Harassment Information Association website on different pages such as the Psychological Manipulation page;

[17] THAT the criminal proceedings period of time was combined with powerful radar assaults and radiation technology that focused on the shin bone linked to inflicting bone marrow damage and leukemia; the lungs area linked to inflaming the lungs, irritating the lungs, scaring the lungs, and damaging the lungs to inflict lung cancer; on the testicles to damage the testicles and destroy testosterone production; from neighboring homes, public places, and the Laval Court House, which Danny Hunt believes to be linked to this criminal harassment network;

[18] THAT both the long and costly proceedings that required Appeals and transcripts, and the powerful radar assaults, that required radar attenuation materials overwhelmed the finances of Danny Hunt and created a large debt.;

[19] THAT these assaults with a cancer causing weapon, the focus on inflicting deadly cancers, a homicide on a long term, combined with the criminal allegation towards a human rights defender and the freedom of expression are the subject of a human rights complaint with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;

[20] THAT Danny Hunt deposited for March 9, 2011 a motion for the restitution of his private computers along with evidence, the article in question. By providing and submitting evidence there is no more justification to keep and search his computers for evidence;

[21] THAT the -- Police left for vacation and returned around March 23, 2011 and the Crown was no longer available until April 12, 2011;

[22] THAT the motion was granted for the restitution of the private computers, the Crown stated that no data analysis would be required, the computers were returned on April 12, 2011;

[23] THAT the Crown had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure of private computers without a warrant, a charter violation;

[24] THAT the -- Police went to Danny Hunt’s residence 3 or more times, said the issue was suspect vehicles, and discussed psychiatric intervention for the behavior of attempting to shield himself from the powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes, which leads to incarceration and costly legal representation;

[25] THAT Danny Hunt was contesting the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial of February 23, 2011on June 13, 2011 when it was corrected or renewed;

[26] THAT the assessment order of February 23, 2011 did not contain the correct hospital information, it indicated Albert Prevost instead of CPLM, and was therefore made Out of Jurisdiction according to R v. Creighton, and was corrected or renewed to CPLM on June 13, 2011;

[27] THAT Danny Hunt attempted to contest the assessment order on May 24, 2011, June 13, 2011, and Appeal the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial at the Appeals Court and Superior Court from July 20, 2011 to October 21, 2011 for no evidence being provided for demand R v Muschke, R v Dobrotic, that the assessment order must be asked for at the end of trial R v Swain, and by specifying the wrong hospital the assessment order was made out of jurisdiction R v Creighton;

[28] That the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial instead of at the end of trial as indicated in the Canadian Supreme Court Judgment R v. Swain in criminal proceedings is unconstitutional;

[29] THAT an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility must be made at the end of trial as to not interfere with the defendant’s defense according to the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Swain;

[30] THAT according the Supreme Court of Canada Judge in R v. Swain <<I believe, moreover, that conferring on the prosecution a conditional right to raise the issue of insanity during the course of the trial infringes upon the equality rights of the mentally disabled under s. 15 of the Charter. It denies the mentally disabled, a group in our society which has been negatively stereotyped and historically disadvantaged, the control over their defences reposed in other accused persons and does so in a way which is discriminatory. In denying the mentally disabled personal autonomy in decisionmaking it reinforces the stereotype that they are incapable of rational thought and the ability to look after their own interests. In a word, it denies them equality with other accused persons under the guise, putting it at its best, of a benign paternalism. -- It seems to me that the principle advanced in support of the prosecution's right to introduce evidence of insanity can be effectively implemented by having the issue of the accused's insanity raised at the conclusion of the trial in cases where the defences put forward by the accused have been rejected and the essential elements of the offence have been established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point I think either party should be free to raise the issue of the accused's insanity. I realize, of course, that there is an element of circularity involved in this approach in that insanity has a direct bearing on proof of mens rea. However, I prefer this approach since it both respects the accused's right to waive the defence of insanity and ensures that any resultant prejudice he suffers in the finding of guilt flows from his own decision not to avail himself of the defense and not as a consequence of the prosecution's having raised the issue in the middle of the trial process.”>>;

[31] THAT the Crown on February 23, 2011 did not provide any evidence to support his demand for the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial by way of affidavit or oral testimony;

[32] THAT according to the criminal code and the Supreme Court of British Columbia Honourable Justice Pitfield in R v. Muschke, evidence on an application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony must be presented by the Crown to make a demand for non-criminal responsibility 672.12(3)(b); <<[31] .. recital of what were referred to by the Crown as facts was insufficient for purposes of ss. 672.11 and 672.12, affidavit or viva voce evidence was required,-- [40] In the ordinary course, evidence on an application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony. -- [47] .. In the case of R. v. Dobrotic, [1995] N.B.J. No. 222 (Q.L.), the New Brunswick Court of Appeal concluded that even with the consent of the accused to assessment, an order should not be made unless there was sufficient evidence before the judge to provide reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility. -- [48] Even if they could have been relied upon to establish reasonable grounds for belief, the recitation of facts by counsel disclosed unusual and quite possibly unacceptable conduct on the part of the applicant but did not provide reasonable and probable grounds for believing that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts in the form of the alleged threats or of knowing that his acts were wrong. -- [51] .. the application was made by the prosecutor pursuant to s. 672.12(3)(b) of the Code. Had fitness been an issue, there was nothing before the judge, whether by statements from counsel or otherwise, which would have justified the formulation of a belief based on reasonable grounds that the applicant, on account of mental disorder, was unable to understand the nature or object of the proceedings in which he was involved, understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or communicate with counsel. One or more of these factors are necessary in order to formulate an opinion that one is unfit to stand trial as the phrase is defined in s. 2 of the Code. -- [52] It follows that because the initial order was unlawful, the extension was equally invalid. .. -- 672.12 (3)(b); (3) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility, the court may only order the assessment if; (b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is criminally responsible for the alleged offence, on account of mental disorder.>>;

[33] THAT the Crown declared the assessment order expired at the Court of Appeals on October 14, 2011, an Appeal concerning the Crown making the demand before trial R v. Swain and without providing any evidence R v. Muschke, R v. Dobrotic;

[34] THAT the Appeal R v. Creighton of October 21, 2011 that was combined with a motion for Abuse of Process “ceased to exist” according to Superior Court Judge -- , resulting in the Abuse of Process motion being made Out of Jurisdiction at the Superior Court without the Appeal R v. Creighton;

[35] THAT the Crown stated that he wished to renew his demand for an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial on October 21, 2011;

[36] THAT the Crown on November 9, 2011 stated that he wished to renew his demand for an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial but required the testimony of a psychiatrist as indicated in R v. Muschke “application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony” <<Me -- : Bien, la problematigue c’est que je dois… -- … je dois communiquer avec son psychiatre parce que monsieur etait… il avait eu une… il y avait eu une ordonnance, la… -- … pour que monsieur soit… se fasse evaluer. -- Et le delai de soixante (60) jours etait termine pour cette ordonnance-la et l’evaluation est pas terminee. -- Et monsieur conteste cette ordonnance-la, donc je sais que je devrai assigner la psychiatre pour qu’elle vienne temoigner sur l’etat de monsieur afin de demontrer au Tribunal qu’il y a des motifs, la, pour soupeser cette demande d’ordonnance la. – Sauf que j’ai pas encore communique avec le psychiatre parce que c’est pas necessairement facile. – Et j’esperais, la, que le dix-huit (18) novembre j’aurais les dates de disponibilite de la psychiatre pour qu’on puisse fixer une audition.>>;

[37] THAT on November 9, 2011 the Lower Court Judge instituted proceedings and ordered a trial over the objections of the demander for April 13, 2012;

[38] That non-criminal responsibility before trial if successful circumvents the right to a trial and charter violation issue presentation at trial;

[39] That because non-criminal responsibility before trial circumvents the right to a trial, charter violation issues, and can make an unreasonable search and seizure of private information legal it can be abused for these reasons and motives;

[40] THAT for these reasons that the Honourable Superior Court Judge declare the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial to be unconstitutional;

[41] THAT the Crown stated that no data copies of the seized computers exist and therefore no Order to destroy any copies is required or can be issued, no object for the order exists, on December 21, 2011;

[42] THAT the -- Police may have data copies of the computers and private information without the Crown’s knowledge;

[43] THAT according to the defendants understanding of the legal consequences; if the Crown is mistaken and the Police do have copies the defendant would have to sue the Crown for damages in Civil Court; If an order was issued any existing copies resulting from the seizure by the police would be illegal, which is a considerable difference;

[44] THAT a possible scenario example to circumvent an order to destroy any existing copies is by returning the computers after a warrantless seizure, claiming the -- Police have no copies and to the Crowns knowledge there are no copies, and therefor there is no object for the demand for destruction; in addition to this, it is possible that another Police organization such as the Surete du Quebec or RCMP obtained copies through a sealed investigation during the vacation period ;

[45] THAT the Crown stated that he had returned the computers and no copies existed on January 12, 2012 at the Superior Court but had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure without a warrant, a charter violation;

[46] THAT because of the Crown’s claim that there are no copies, there is no object to issue an order for the destruction of computer copies as is allowed in a seizure with a warrant or objects that are not in the category of data information;

[47] THAT on June 4, 2012 the Honourable Judge dismissed 6 charter violation issues that were raised; the first was freedom of expression s. 2(b);

[48] THAT on June 4, 2012 another Charter violation issue was Discrimination s. 15 and Prejudice;

[49] THAT on June 4, 2012 another Charter violation issue was the search of a dwelling home without a warrant s. 8;

[50] THAT on June 4, 2012 another Charter violation issue was the seizure of computers without a warrant that the Crown had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure s. 8;

[51] THAT ON June 4, 2012 another Charter violation was the right to be presumed innocent 11(d), tried within a reasonable time s. 11(b), and the security of the person s. 7;

[52] Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

[53] Whether assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial 672.12 (1), 672.12 (1)(3) (a), 672.12 (1)(3)(b) that can circumvent the right to a trial, the presentation of charter violation issues, and can make unlawful seizures of private computers legal and abused for these reasons constitutional, <<A guilty verdict without a trial but not criminally responsible>><<The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal 11(d)>>, or violate s. 7, 8, 9, 11 (b), 11(d), 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

[54] Whether the seizure of private computers without a warrant that involves private information and data such as passwords, contact lists, banking information, and personal information that are simply returned later with the claim that no copies were made, which removes the ability to issue an order to destroy any existing copies making any existing copies from the seizure illegal, <<no object to issue the order>><<unreasonable search and seizure s. 8 and the right to security of the person s. 7>>, constitutional or violate s. 7, 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

[55] Whether the publication of a research article that is identified as a research article that causes a person to receive a threat 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b), <<in any manner causes any person to receive a threat>>, resulting in incarceration and criminal allegations violates the freedom of expression s. 2(b);

IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

[56] The -- Police demand for incarceration and psychological evaluation;

[57] The assessment order of February 23, 2011 and June 13, 2011;

[58] The transcript of February 23, 2011, June 13, 2011, October 21, 2011, November 9, 2011, December 21, 2012, January 12, 2012, April 13, 2012, June 4, 2012;

[59] Judgments R v Swain, R v Langlois, R v Wells, R v Oakes, R v Muschke, R v Dobrotic, R v Creighton, R v Keegrstra, R v Irwin Toy, R v Silveira, R v Collins, R v Ruby, R v Cobb, ;

[60] The thick booklet with charter violation issues;

[61] Human Rights Defender Presentation booklet 1st and 2nd;

[62] Human Rights Defender CNN iReport Articles, -- Police Report, Other Documents;

[63] Human Rights Defender Motions June 13, 2011 and October 21, 2011;

[58] Human Rights Defender Other Appeals and Motions;

[59] Human Rights Complaint;

[59] Affidavit and Factum; and

[60] Such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

THE ORDER SOUGHT IS:

[61] A declaration that non-criminal responsibility before trial can circumvent the right to a trial, charter violation issues presented at trial, unreasonable search and seizure, the right to privacy and that because of this it can be abused for these reasons and motives; to declare the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial instead of at the end of trial as indicated in the Canadian Supreme Court Judgment R v. Swain to be unconstitutional; that the seizure of computers without a warrant is unconstitutional; that dismissing a demand for an order for the destruction of any existing data copies from private computers seized without a warrant is unconstitutional; that criminal allegations towards a human rights defender and a published Mobbing Research article is unconstitutional; and to declare the use of assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial and warrantless search and seizure of private computers to be unconstitutional in regards to the Constitutional Act, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

DECLARE that assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial that can circumvent the right to a trial and charter violation issues presented at trial to be unconstitutional, violates section 7, 9, 11(b), 11(d), and section 15;

DECLARE that the warrantless seizure of private computers is unconstitutional, violates section 8;

DECLARE that fabricating criminal allegations of uttering threats in a published research article to be unconstitutional, violates section 2(b);

GRANT .. ;

GRANT the demander who is a human rights defender and a victim of false allegations that involve the freedom of expression, which is essential for a free democracy and the pursuit of the truth without fear of persecution, and the search and seizure of private computers an exemplary amount;

THE WHOLE .. .

PLEASE ACT ACCORDINGLY

 

 

The February 21, 2011 CNN iReport Article in Question (video)

Mobbing Research : Marc Lepine and Rage shooting and Rampages [facebook]
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-559620

Note that the video shows posting on Facebook Walls but the Mobbing Research article was also posted in the Discussion areas and the printout the Crown gave me was of the CSPAN discussion post.

 

Freedom of Expression and Criminal Allegations Charter Violation Issue 2(b) June 4, 2012 (unavailable/censored)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-839143

Seizure of Private Computers Charter Violation Issue Judgment Error June 4, 2012 (unavailable/censored)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-839142

Judgement on Charter Issue Section 2(b), 7, 8, 11(b), 11(d), 15(1);

freedom of expression, unreasonable search and seizure, the right to be presumed innocent, discrimination, etc.

Judgement of Charter Issues of June 4th, The Facts According to the Judge
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-806479

Judgement of Charter Issues of June 4th Continued (part 2)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-806478

 

 

 

CANADA

PROVINCE DE QUEBEC

DISTRICT DE LAVAL

Numéro du greffe : 540

No: 540-17-005409-122

No: 540-01-048499-118

No: LVL-110221-041

Superior COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL COURT)

__________________________________________

DANNY HUNT;

Demander

v.

--

Defenders

__________________________________________

MOTION TO RESPOND TO DENOUCIATION NOTICES, TO ADDRESS CHARTER ISSUE JUDGMENT ERROR, TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE, TO RESCHEDULE PRELIMINARY MEASURES TO GIVE TIME FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC TO ADDRESS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACCORDING ARTICLE 95 C.p.c., SECTIONS 24(1) AND 52(1)

Destination :

--

And.

--

TAKE NOTICE that this Motion is to Respond to Denounciation Notices, to address a Charter Issue judgment error through articles 24(1) and 52(1), reschedule the preliminary measures to give time for Attorney General of Quebec time to respond on September 25, 2012, to obtain the transcript of April 24, 2012, order the -- Police members involved in the allegations of February 21, 2011 and proceedings on April 13, 2012, and June 4,2012 to identify themselves to a Superior Court Judge, present the contents of this motion and dismiss the Denounciations.

FURTHER MORE, TAKE NOTICE that the date of audience of this cause is set for 11 September 2012, at 9:00 am, or as soon as the court will permit, in front of one of the Honourable Superior Court Judges, Civil Court, District of Laval, at the Palais de Justice de Laval , in room 2.02.

The pretentions of Danny Hunt and his arguments are to the effect;

[1] Danny Hunt is the creator and founder of the only English website on the issue of psychological harassment, Psychological Harassment Information Association, that includes workplace psychological harassment, criminal harassment, bullying, mobbing, discrimination, and sexual harassment;

[2] Danny Hunt published on CNN iReport a Mobbing Research article on February 13, 2011 that involves a list of people “hitting back” by committing terrible crimes linked to the loss of finances, employment, bankruptcy, and homelessness;

[3] In this list Marc Lepine is a strange exception where a suicide note actually states that this link, depleted finances and homelessness, are not the cause of his terrible crime as if Marc Lepine knows the cause of other similar terrible crimes or as if someone else wrote the suicide note to hide the cause, mobbing, the elimination of a person’s means of subsistence and the depletion of finances, and the use of homelessness as a weapon;

[4] On February 21, 2011 Danny Hunt published the same Mobbing Research article on CNN iReport with the exception of a parody of Marc Lepine’s suicide note at the top of the Mobbing Research article;

[5] On February 21, 2011 Danny Hunt was arrested and incarcerated by the -- Police after sharing the Mobbing Research article in the Facebook CSPAN discussion area;

[6] The -- Police entered and searched the dwelling home of Danny Hunt without a warrant, located his private computers, and seized the private computers for evidence without a warrant;

[7] The criminal charge of uttering threats towards women 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b) on February 21, 2011 is fabricated from the parody in the Mobbing Research article published on February 21, 2011;

[8] NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c. of August 27, 2012; Freedom of Expression;

<< Whether the publication of a research article, Mobbing Research article, that is identified as a research article, Mobbing Research, that causes a person to receive a threat 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b), <<in any manner causes any person to receive a threat>>, resulting in incarceration and criminal allegations violates the freedom of expression s. 2(b);>>

[9] The -- Police made a demand that Danny Hunt remain incarcerated for a psychological evaluation based on 1. No criminal record 2. A disability, mental illness 3. A previous incident of non-criminal responsibility in 2003;

[10] Following the -- Police demand the Crown made a demand on February 23, 2011 for an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial without providing evidence by way of affidavit or testimony;

[11] The February 23, 2011 assessment order before trial for non-criminal responsibility if successful would circumvent Danny Hunt’s right to a fair trial and the presentation of several charter violation issues at trial such as the freedom of expression, entering and searching a dwelling home without a warrant, seizing private computers and information without a warrant, and make this seizure of private computers and information legal;

[12] Danny Hunt has a disability, mental illness, a vulnerability, and claims he was assaulted with powerful radar and radiation technology that focused on the shin bone linked to damaging the shin bone marrow and leukemia; the lungs linked irritating the lungs, inflaming the lungs, damaging the lungs, and scarring the lungs linked to lung cancer; and the testicles linked to damaging the testicles, destroying testosterone production, fertility, increased risk of birth defects and children with autism, and degrading themes during the long and delayed criminal proceedings, which increase the chance the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial would be successful;

[13] Danny Hunt had discussed his innocence and did not want an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility;

[14] Danny Hunt deposited for March 9, 2011 a motion for the restitution of his private computers along with evidence, the February 21, 2011 CNN iReport Mobbing Research article in question; the logic is that by providing evidence there is no justification to keep and search the computers; The -- Police left for vacation and returned around March 23, 2011 and the Crown was no longer available until April 12, 2011;

[15] The motion was granted on April 12, 2011 for the restitution of the private computers, the Crown stated that no data analysis would be required, the computers were returned on April 12, 2011; the Crown had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure of private computers without a warrant, a Charter Violation;

[16] The Charter Issues to this point according to the demander involved the freedom of expression, entering and searching a dwelling home without a warrant, seizing private computer without a warrant, the demand for non-criminal responsibility before trial without supporting evidence by way of affidavits and testimony, and as of March 9, 2011 – April 12, 2011 had returned the private computers seized without a warrant, claimed not to need them, and had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure without a warrant;

[17] The Crown stated he needed the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial to be completed and the charges were not withdrawn;

<<Among the many powers of a prosecutor are the following: -- , the power to prosecute, -- , the power to withdraw charges,>> Nelles v. Ontario, [1989]

<<The required element of malice is for all intents, the equivalent of "improper purpose".>> Nelles v. Ontario, [1989]

[18] According the Supreme Court of Canada Judge in R v. Swain assessment order demands before trial infringe upon the equal rights of the mentally disabled under section 15 of the Charter, denies the defense the control over their own defense, can be effectively implemented at the conclusion of trial, and that this ensures that any resulting prejudice and finding of guilt is a result of the defense;

<<I believe, moreover, that conferring on the prosecution a conditional right to raise the issue of insanity during the course of the trial infringes upon the equality rights of the mentally disabled under s. 15 of the Charter. It denies the mentally disabled, a group in our society which has been negatively stereotyped and historically disadvantaged, the control over their defences reposed in other accused persons and does so in a way which is discriminatory. In denying the mentally disabled personal autonomy in decisionmaking it reinforces the stereotype that they are incapable of rational thought and the ability to look after their own interests. In a word, it denies them equality with other accused persons under the guise, putting it at its best, of a benign paternalism. -- It seems to me that the principle advanced in support of the prosecution's right to introduce evidence of insanity can be effectively implemented by having the issue of the accused's insanity raised at the conclusion of the trial in cases where the defences put forward by the accused have been rejected and the essential elements of the offence have been established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point I think either party should be free to raise the issue of the accused's insanity. I realize, of course, that there is an element of circularity involved in this approach in that insanity has a direct bearing on proof of mens rea. However, I prefer this approach since it both respects the accused's right to waive the defence of insanity and ensures that any resultant prejudice he suffers in the finding of guilt flows from his own decision not to avail himself of the defense and not as a consequence of the prosecution's having raised the issue in the middle of the trial process.”>>;

[19] According to the criminal code and the Supreme Court of British Columbia Honourable Justice Pitfield in R v. Muschke, evidence on an application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony must be presented by the Crown to make a demand for non-criminal responsibility 672.12(3)(b);

<<[31] .. recital of what were referred to by the Crown as facts was insufficient for purposes of ss. 672.11 and 672.12, affidavit or viva voce evidence was required,-- [40] In the ordinary course, evidence on an application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony. -- [47] .. In the case of R. v. Dobrotic, [1995] N.B.J. No. 222 (Q.L.), the New Brunswick Court of Appeal concluded that even with the consent of the accused to assessment, an order should not be made unless there was sufficient evidence before the judge to provide reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility. -- [48] Even if they could have been relied upon to establish reasonable grounds for belief, the recitation of facts by counsel disclosed unusual and quite possibly unacceptable conduct on the part of the applicant but did not provide reasonable and probable grounds for believing that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts in the form of the alleged threats or of knowing that his acts were wrong. -- [51] .. the application was made by the prosecutor pursuant to s. 672.12(3)(b) of the Code. Had fitness been an issue, there was nothing before the judge, whether by statements from counsel or otherwise, which would have justified the formulation of a belief based on reasonable grounds that the applicant, on account of mental disorder, was unable to understand the nature or object of the proceedings in which he was involved, understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or communicate with counsel. One or more of these factors are necessary in order to formulate an opinion that one is unfit to stand trial as the phrase is defined in s. 2 of the Code. -- [52] It follows that because the initial order was unlawful, the extension was equally invalid. .. -- 672.12 (3)(b); (3) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility, the court may only order the assessment if; (b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is criminally responsible for the alleged offence, on account of mental disorder.>>;

[20] Danny Hunt was contesting the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial of February 23, 2011, Motion to Contest Psychological Evaluation For Danny Hunt, on June 13, 2011 when it was renewed and corrected with the right hospital for the assessment order. The assessment order of February 23, 2011 did not contain the correct hospital information, it indicated Albert Prevost instead of CPLM, and was therefore made Out of Jurisdiction according to R v. Creighton; it was corrected or renewed to CPLM on June 13, 2011;

[21] Assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility must be made at the end of trial as to not interfere with the defendant’s defense and inflict a prejudice, the right to be presumed innocent, according to the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Swain, Appeals Court R v Wells, R v Langlois;

[22] NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c. of August 27, 2012; The Right to be Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty in a Fair Trial section 11(d);

<< Whether assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial 672.12 (1), 672.12 (1)(3) (a), 672.12 (1)(3)(b) that can circumvent the right to a trial, the presentation of charter violation issues, and can make unlawful seizures of private computers legal and abused for these reasons constitutional, <<A guilty verdict without a trial but not criminally responsible>><<The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal 11(d)>>, or violate s. 7, 8, 9, 11 (b), 11(d), 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;>>

[23] The defenders in the NOTICE OF DENOUNCIATION refer to Nelles v. Ontario 1989 SCC, and claim that the motion to institute proceedings does not contain factual evidence in regards the c) see 3. and d) see 4. Requirement sections: -- that the tort c) the absence of reasonable and probable cause; and d) malice, or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect.

<<2. The Tort of Malicious Prosecution

There are four necessary elements which must be proved for a plaintiff to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution:

a)the proceedings must have been initiated by the defendant;

b)the proceedings must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff;

c)the absence of reasonable and probable cause;

d)malice, or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect.>> Nelles v. Ontario, [1989]

<<Among the many powers of a prosecutor are the following: -- , the power to prosecute, -- , the power to withdraw charges,>> Nelles v. Ontario, [1989]

<<The required element of malice is for all intents, the equivalent of "improper purpose".>> Nelles v. Ontario, [1989]

[24] c) the absence of reasonable and probable cause; involves fabricating criminal allegations from a published Mobbing Research article on February 21, 2011 and the Freedom of Expression, a Charter Violation Issue and a part of the NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c.; the Crown asked for the trial date to be April 13, 2012 on November 9, 2011;

<< <<Among the many powers of a prosecutor are the following: -- , the power to prosecute, -- , the power to withdraw charges,>> Nelles v. Ontario, [1989]

<<On November 9, 2011 the Crown asked for the trial date to be April 13, 2012;>>

<<Me -- : -- Et je vais vous suggerer le treize (13) avril deux mille douze (2012) en salle 1.10.>> page 14 of Nov 9, 2012 transcript >>

[25] d) malice, or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect; involves The Right to be Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty by a Fair Trial 11(d), the Crown’s demand for assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial that do not conform to the criminal code procedure specifications and requirements, the high risk of success mentioned in [12] a disability, mental illness, a vulnerability, claims of being assaulted with cancer causing powerful radar and radiation technology during the criminal proceedings, the success of the assessment order before trial would circumvent the right to a trial and the presentation of charter violation issues presented at trial, and a Charter Violation Issue that is part of the NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c. of August 27, 2012;

<<non-criminal responsibility before trial involves The Right to be Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty by a Fair Trial 11(d),>>

<<Further, it should be noted that in many, if not all cases of malicious prosecution by an Attorney General or Crown Attorney, there will have been an infringement of an accused's rights as guaranteed by ss. 7 and 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.>> Nelles v. Ontario, [1989]

<<The required element of malice is for all intents, the equivalent of "improper purpose".>> Nelles v. Ontario, [1989]

[26] Danny Hunt attempted to contest the assessment order on May 24, 2011, June 13, 2011, and Appeal the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial at the Appeals Court and Superior Court from July 20, 2011 to October 14, 2011 for no supporting evidence being provided for demand by way of affidavit or by testimony, R v Muschke, R v Dobrotic; that the demand for the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility must be made at the end of trial according to R v Swain SCC, R v Wells, R v Langlois; on Oct 21, 2011 that by specifying the wrong hospital the assessment order was made out of jurisdiction R v Creighton, which included an Abuse of Process Motion;

[27] The Crown declared the assessment order expired at the Court of Appeals on October 14, 2011, an Appeal concerning the Crown making the demand before trial R v. Swain and without providing any evidence by way of affidavit or testimony as indicated in R v. Muschke, R v. Dobrotic;

[28] The Appeal R v. Creighton of October 21, 2011 that was combined with a motion for Abuse of Process “ceased to exist” according to Superior Court Judge -- , resulting in the Abuse of Process motion being made Out of Jurisdiction at the Superior Court without the Appeal R v. Creighton;

[29] The Crown stated that he wished to renew his demand for an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial on October 21, 2011;

[30] The Crown on November 9, 2011 stated that he wished to renew his demand for an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial but required the testimony of a psychiatrist as indicated in R v. Muschke and R v Dobrotic “application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony”, which he did not do on February 23, 2011 and on June13, 2011;

<<Me -- : Bien, la problematigue c’est que je dois… -- … je dois communiquer avec son psychiatre parce que monsieur etait… il avait eu une… il y avait eu une ordonnance, la… -- … pour que monsieur soit… se fasse evaluer. -- Et le delai de soixante (60) jours etait termine pour cette ordonnance-la et l’evaluation est pas terminee. -- Et monsieur conteste cette ordonnance-la, donc je sais que je devrai assigner la psychiatre pour qu’elle vienne temoigner sur l’etat de monsieur afin de demontrer au Tribunal qu’il y a des motifs, la, pour soupeser cette demande d’ordonnance la. – Sauf que j’ai pas encore communique avec le psychiatre parce que c’est pas necessairement facile. – Et j’esperais, la, que le dix-huit (18) novembre j’aurais les dates de disponibilite de la psychiatre pour qu’on puisse fixer une audition.>>;

[31] On November 9, 2011 the Lower Court Judge ordered a trial over the objections of the demander and the Crown asked for the trial date to be April 13, 2012;

<<Me -- : -- Et je vais vous suggerer le treize (13) avril deux mille douze (2012) en salle 1.10.>> page 14 of Nov 9, 2012 transcript

[32] On December 21, 2011 Danny Hunt presented a professionally written motion to destroy any existing copies of the seized computers. The Crown stated that the computers were returned, that no data copies of the seized computers exist, and therefore no order to destroy any copies can be issued, no object for the order exists;

[33] On January 12, 2012 at the Superior Court the Crown stated again that the computers were returned, that no copies were made, that there is no object to issue an order for the destruction of any existing computer copies; the Crown had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure of computers without a warrant, a charter violation;

[34] The defendants understanding of the legal consequences; if the Crown is mistaken and the Police do have copies the defendant would have to sue the Crown for damages in Civil Court; If an order was issued any existing copies resulting from the seizure by the police would be illegal, which is a considerable difference;

[35] To the Crowns knowledge there are no copies, and therefor there is no object for the demand for destruction of any existing copies to be destroyed, which would make any resulting copies from the seizure illegal; is it possible in different scenarios such as another Police organization to obtained copies through a sealed investigation during the -- Police vacation period;

[36] NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c. of August 27, 2012; Unreasonable Search and Seizure section 8, the Right to Security of the Person;

<< Whether the seizure of private computers without a warrant that involves private information and data such as passwords, contact lists, banking information, and personal information that are simply returned later with the claim that no copies were made, which removes the ability to issue an order to destroy any existing copies making any existing copies from the seizure illegal, <<no object to issue the order>><<unreasonable search and seizure s. 8 and the right to security of the person s. 7>>, constitutional or violate s. 7, 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;>>

[37] On June 4, 2012 one Charter violation issue raised was the seizure of computers without a warrant that the Crown had not refuted his burden of proof for, unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter; the Judge made an error in his Judgment when he states the computers were said to belong to the demanders father; it is clearly stated in the -- Police report that they were seizing the computers of Danny Hunt;

<<14h50 Pere du PRE arrive sur les lieux -- , .. , -- 15h40 l’agt 991 saisie le materiel informatiques du PRE -- , .. ,>> Rapport D’Enquete Complementaire page 3 of 5

[38] The Police members involved on February 21, 2011 and April 6, 2011 Notice for Fire Arms Restrictions did not seem to be the same Police members on April 13, 2012, and the Police members of April 13, 2012 did not seem to be the same Police members on June 4, 2012; During the proceedings the demander Danny Hunt did not question this fact for the reasons already mentioned, a disability, mental illness, a vulnerability but now that he has been acquitted does not know the implications or consequences of this observation;

[39] The DENOUCIATION NOTICE of one of the defenders claims the civil proceedings are prescribed and wish the content of the proceedings to be rejected completely or in parts;

[40] The defenders both stated on April 24, 2012 that under law the civil proceedings could not proceed until there was an acquittal, the acquittal was on June 4, 2012;

[41] Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC

NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c.

SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2012

[42] Whether assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial 672.12 (1), 672.12 (1)(3) (a), 672.12 (1)(3)(b) that can circumvent the right to a trial, the presentation of charter violation issues, and can make unlawful seizures of private computers legal and abused for these reasons constitutional, <<A guilty verdict without a trial but not criminally responsible>><<The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal 11(d)>>, or violate s. 7, 8, 9, 11 (b), 11(d), 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

The Canadian criminal code:

672.12 (1) The court may make an assessment order at any stage of proceedings against the accused of its own motion, on application of the accused or, subject to subsections (2) and (3), on application of the prosecutor.

(3) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility, the court may only order the assessment if

(a) the accused puts his or her mental capacity for criminal intent into issue; or

(b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is criminally responsible for the alleged offence, on account of mental disorder.

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights charters specify that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial section 11(d), non-criminal responsibility before trial circumvents this.

Non-criminally responsible before trial is like being found guilty of the criminal allegations without a trial but not criminally responsible due to mental illness. This means that if the Police enter and search your home without a warrant, seize your computers without a warrant, and the allegations are false and violate the freedom of expression, this is now all justified. No charter violation issues presented at trial and no trial, you've been found guilty before trial through non-criminal responsibility and the seizure of computers without a warrant is now legal too, which means that computer copies can also be used for more criminal allegations.

[43] Whether the seizure of private computers without a warrant that involves private information and data such as passwords, contact lists, banking information, and personal information that are simply returned later with the claim that no copies were made, which removes the ability to issue an order to destroy any existing copies making any existing copies from the seizure illegal, <<no object to issue the order>><<unreasonable search and seizure s. 8 and the right to security of the person s. 7>>, constitutional or violate s. 7, 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

[44] Whether the publication of a research article that is identified as a research article that causes a person to receive a threat 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b), <<in any manner causes any person to receive a threat>>, resulting in incarceration and criminal allegations violates the freedom of expression s. 2(b);

EVIDENCE SUBMITTAL:

[45] Charter Issues 2(b), 7, 8, 11(b), 11(d), 15 booklet;

[46] Human Rights Defender Booklet:

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

NON-CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE TRIAL FEB 23, 2011 – NOV 9, 2011 APPEALS AND DELAYS

SHORT DOCUMENTS PRESENTATION AUGUST 14, 2012

[47] Human Rights Defender Booklet:

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

NON-CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE TRIAL

UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND CHARTER INFRINGMENT

REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

SHORT DOCUMENTS PRESENTATION (2nd)

[48] Human Rights Defender Booklet:

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT INFORMATION ASSOCIATION

MOBBING RESEARCH CNN IREPORT ARTICLE OF FEB 21, 2011

-- POLICE REPORT

SEIZURE OF PRIVATE COMPUTERS WITHOUT A WARRANT

-- POLICE DEMAND FOR INCARCERATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR NON-CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FEBRUARY 23, 2011 AND JUNE 13, 2011

[49] Human Rights Defender Booklet:

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT INFORMATION ASSOCIATION

MOTION TO CONTEST PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION MAY 24, 2011 - JUNE 13, 2011

APPEAL, R V. MUSCHKE, R V. SWAIN, OF OCTOBER 14, 2011 AT APPEALS COURT

APPEAL, R V. CREIGHTON, OF OCTOBER 21, 2011 AT SUPERIOR COURT

ABUSE OF PROCESS MOTION OF OCTOBER 21, 2011 AT SUPERIOR COURT

[50] Human Rights Complaint Bootket:

To: OHCHR freedom of expression mandate, human rights defenders mandate, Petitions Team 1 - 4

Which includes:

Transcripts of February 23, 2011, May 24, 2011, October 21, 2011, November 9, 2011, January 12, 2012, April 13, 2012, Police Report Documents, the Assessment Orders of February 23, 2011 and June 13, 2011 for non-criminal responsibility before trial, the February 21, 2011 CNN iReport Mobbing Research article, the June 4, 2012 JUDGMENT FOR CHARTER ISSUES SECTION 2(B), 7, 8, 11(B), 11(D), 15(1),

[51] Exhibits 1-17 Booklet;

[52] Affidavit; and

[53] Such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

ORDER the -- Police members involved in these proceedings to identify themselves with identification before a Superior Court Judge;

ORDER the -- Police members involved in these proceedings to confirm their participation in the criminal proceedings of April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012;

ORDER the preliminary measures rescheduled to five weeks to give time to the Attorney General of Quebec to respond to the NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.c.p. scheduled for presentation on September 25, 2012, a public interest;

ORDER the preliminary measures rescheduled to five weeks to give time to the Commission des Droits de la Personne time to repond as to if the complaint will be submitted to and addressed by the Tribunal of Human Rights, a public interst;

ORDER the preliminary measures rescheduled to five weeks to give time for the demander to obtain the transcript of April 24, 2012;

DECLARE that the criminal allegations fabricated from a published February21, 2011Mobbing Research article on CNN iReport is a clear case and violation of the freedom of expression;

DECLARE that assessment order demands for non-criminal responsibility must be made at the end of trial as indicated in R v Swain SCC, R v Wells, R v Langlois;

DECLARE that assessment order demands must be made with supporting evidence by way of affidavit or testimony as indicated in R v Muschke and R v Dobrotic;

DECLARE that the abuse of non-criminal responsibility before trial can be used for the following:

<< The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights charters specify that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial section 11(d), non-criminal responsibility before trial circumvents this.

Non-criminally responsible before trial is like being found guilty of the criminal allegations without a trial but not criminally responsible due to mental illness. This means that if the Police enter and search your home without a warrant, seize your computers without a warrant, and the allegations are false and violate the freedom of expression, this is now all justified. No charter violation issues presented at trial and no trial, you've been found guilty before trial through non-criminal responsibility and the seizure of computers without a warrant is now legal too, which means that computer copies can also be used for more criminal allegations.>>

DECLARE that there is enough supporting evidence for the proceedings to continue;

DISSMISS the Denounciations of the defenders;

GRANT the submittal of the evidence specified in this Motion and Exhibits 1-27;

GRANT the orders;

GRANT the declarations;

THE WHOLE with costs.

PLEASE ACT ACCORDINGLY

 

 

-- Police Dept.

--

September 12, 2012 criminal complaint from Danny Hunt;

On February 21, 2011 the -- Police filed criminal allegations of uttering threats towards women on Facebook towards Danny Hunt --;

Some of the -- Police dept. members involved were Sgt. --, Agt. --, Agt. --;

On April 13, 2012 I believe that the people who identified themselves at the Palais de Justice Laval during the criminal proceedings 540-01-048499-118 as these -- Police members were imposters;

Furthermore, the people who identified themselves at the Palais de Justice Laval during the criminal proceedings 540-01-048499-118 as these -- Police members on June 4, 2012 were different from the people of April 13, 2012;

On June 4, 2012 I was acquitted of the -- Police criminal allegations --;

For these reasons I would like to file a criminal complaint against these people for impersonating -- Police dept. members and identifying themselves as Sgt. --, Agt. --, and Agt. -- during the criminal proceedings 540-01-048499-118 and for fraud;

I have audio and transcripts of these days, April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012, to deposit as proof with which you can proceed to identify if these people are who they claim to be with the real -- Police members.

Sincerely,
Danny Hunt
558 Felix
Laval Quebec
H7P 3E3
Tel/fax: 450-622-7117

 

 

Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales
2828, Boul. Laurier
Tour 1, bureau 500
Québec (Québec) G1V 0B9
Télécopieur : 418 643-7462

Me Marie-Josée Di Lallo
1, rue Notre-Dame Est, bureau 4.100
Montréal (Québec) H2Y 1B6
Télécopieur : 514 863-9895

Nom : Hunt
Prénom : Danny
Adresse : 558 Felix
Téléphone (rés.) : 450 622-7117
Télécopieur : 450 622-7117
Les coordonnées du dossier: District de Laval
Numéro du dossier concerné : 540-01-048499-118
Nom et prénom de l'accusé : Danny Hunt
Nature de l’événement : LVL-110221-041 uttering threats 264
Date de l'événement : February 21, 2011
Lieu de l'événement : District de Laval
Service de police :
Acquitted : June 4, 2012

September 12, 2012 complaint from Danny Hunt;

Danny Hunt is a human rights defender, the creator and founder of the only English website on psychological harassment, Psychological Harassment Information Association www.psychologicalharassment.ca;

On February 21, 2011 the -- Police filed criminal allegations of uttering threats towards women on Facebook towards Danny Hunt LVL-110221-041;

The Crown Prosecutor on Feb 21, 2011 was Me --, which was followed by Me --;

A complaint was file for the Crown Prosecutors using non-criminal responsibility before trial that if successful would circumvent my right to trial and the presentation of Charter Violation Issues;

The Charter Issues were freedom of expression, the allegations were fabricated from a published Mobbing Research .. article CNN iReport; entering a dwelling home without a warrant, searching a dwelling home without a warrant, seizing private computers without a warrant, the right to be presumed innocent linked the non-criminal responsibility before trial;

Several Appeals occurred from May 24, 2011, July 20, 2011 to October 21, 2011 for the non-criminal responsibility before trial;

The assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial was corrected with the correct hospital name and renewed on June 13, 2011 against the wishes of Danny Hunt;
After January 12, 2012 where Me -- stated not having any computer copies of the seized computers at the Superior Court he was replace by Me -- on April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012;

This complaint is against Me --;

Some of the -- Police dept. members involved were Sgt. -- , Agt. --, Agt. --;

On April 13, 2012 I believe that the people who identified themselves at the Palais de Justice Laval during the criminal proceedings 540-01-048499-118 as these -- Police members were imposters;

Furthermore, the people who identified themselves at the Palais de Justice Laval during the criminal proceedings 540-01-048499-118 as these -- Police members on June 4, 2012 were different from the people of April 13, 2012;

On June 4, 2012 I was acquitted of the -- Police criminal allegations LVL-110221-041;

For these reasons I would like to file a complaint against Me -- who was involved in the prosecution and imposters or not the people they claim to be, people impersonating -- Police dept. members and identifying themselves as Sgt. -- , Agt. -- , and Agt. -- during the criminal proceedings 540-01-048499-118;

Mental Illness, Disability, and Vulnerability

I would also like to express the following;
I see three vulnerabilities that I faced during these criminal proceedings.

1. the first is the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial that if successful would circumvent my right to trial and several charter issue presentations at trial.

2. police threats of intervention for taking protective measures from powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes, which leads to incarceration during the criminal proceedings and the psychiatric assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial.

3. following the Nov 9, 2012 order for trial and the Crown stating again that there were no computer copies at the Superior Court, linked to the Charter Issue violation mentioned previously, the Crown was replaced by another and the Police seemed to be imposters on April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012. I did not say anything at that time because of this vulnerability and different threats such as continued self representation and participating defense lawyers (mobbing), psychiatric intervention, etc. I was acquitted on June 4, 2012 and now trying to address this issue..

Sincerely,
Danny Hunt
558 Felix
Laval Quebec
H7P 3E3
Tel/fax: 450-622-7117

 

BLOG

Journal Entry Sept 3, 2012

Recent radar attenuation purchases, 2' x 4' metal plates, white enamel paint, travertine stone. The radar assaults from both sides of the home and back at 558 Felix Laval Quebec have increased following the posting about non-criminal responsibility before trial, which circumvents the right to a trial. The assaults hit the bone and are probably linked to bone cancer along with the focus on the shins linked to bone marrow damage and leukemia.

 

Journal Entry Sept 3, 2012 Valid Allegations?

On April 12, 2011 when the Crown returned my computers and said no data analysis was needed he said now all he needed was the non-criminal responsibility to be completed. I did not want this assessment for non-criminal responsibility because I knew I was completely innocent and began attempts to Appeal it. The interesting part, after the lower court judge dismissed all the charter issues that were raised, which include the freedom of expression, searching a dwelling home without a warrant, seizing private computers without a warrant, and the Crown not justifying the seizure of private computers without a warrant at trial the Police members stated that they still believed that the allegations were true on June 4, 2012.

On a long term I'll probably get sick, which is different from simply disappearing in homelessness. The point is that I'm disappointed by the human rights organizations lack of response.

 

Journal Entry Sept 4, 2012 Pattern and Fax Calls Re-Routing, Communications Interception?

During the criminal proceedings from Feb 21, 2011 to Jun 4, 2012 I was even more sleep deprived through HSS Hypersonic Sound or LRAD focused ultrasound type of technology before court appearances and assaulted with cancer causing powerful radar even more during the morning of court appearances when you have to prepare, eat, shower, and move around the house a lot instead of being behind protective shielding.

When I would send communication fax calls to human rights organizations outside of Canada my calls would hangup, the CSID would change to a generic CSID of G3, which leads me to believe they were re-routed or intercepted. I believe another pattern is the generic CSID G3 first, hanging up the line, and then coping the receivers CSID. In some cases, long distance calls, most of the fax would be received and then hangup before completion. I recently communicated with Pro-Bono Quebec to see if they can assist with the article 95 and Charter of Rights and Freedoms and they had a generic G3 ID.

 

Journal Entry Sept 4, 2012 Powerful Radar Assaults a Long Term Poison, Hidden Homicides

The powerful radar assaults aimed at the shin bone to inflict bone marrow damage, the lungs to inflame, irritate, damage, and scar the lungs, that hit the bone with possible links to bone cancer, and the testicles linked to damaging the testicles and testosterone production is line a poison linked to serious illness and deadly cancers on a long term, hidden homicides.

 

Journal Entry Sept 5, 2012 Non-Criminal Responsibility Before Trial, Circumventing a Trial

All the British regimes may have the same "hole" to circumvent a trial through non-criminal responsibility before trial. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights charters specify that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial section 11(d), non-criminal responsibility before trial circumvents this.

Non-criminally responsible before trial is like being found guilty of the criminal allegations without a trial but not criminally responsible due to mental illness. This means that if the Police enter and search your home without a warrant, seize your computers without a warrant, and the allegations are false and violate the freedom of expression, this is now all justified. No charter violation issues presented at trial and no trial, you've been found guilty before trial through non-criminal responsibility and the seizure of computers without a warrant is now legal too, which means that computer copies can also be used for more criminal allegations.

This "hole" may be linked to the use of technology such as powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes, public places, and court house too during long and delayed criminal proceedings to encourage the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial.

 

Journal Entry Sept 5, 2012 Human Rights Organizations and Politics

I have been trying to file complaints with the Justice Minister, Commission des Droits de la Personne, High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Amnesty International, .. , for many months with no response. I get the impression that they know the "game" of these regimes that claim to be law abiding and human rights supporting. Given time and delays the targeted citizens lose their means of subsistence, which is linked to homelessness. Those who are assaulted with powerful radar assaults run away, recaptured, and incarcerated during the proceedings and found guilty through non-criminal responsibility before trial or at trial.

 

Journal Entry Sept 6, 2012 Notice of Intention According to Article 95 C.p.c.

Two different notices were given on August 23 and 24, and this one on August 27 to the Attorney General of Quebec, Duty Justice Minister of Canada, Criminal Pursuits Director of the new Laval District, .. ,

 

Journal Entry Sept 6, 2012 Police Imposters in Court?

It seems to me that the Police members involved on Feb 21, 2011 were different people in their appearance in court on April 13, 2012 and different people from April 13, 2012 on Jun 4, 2012. Why and how is this possible, testifying and going to trial, I do not know.

 

Journal Entry Sept 6, 2012 Notice to Rejection Motion to Institute Proceedings

I have received Notices to Reject the Motion to Institute Proceedings from the two parties involved. One claims that there is no evidence to support the motion and the other claims that it is prescribed (time/delay) by city laws, and to reject it completely or in part.

Theory: The claim that it is prescribed and to be rejected in part may be link to the strange phenomenon of imposters at a later time, April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012, that would be included and where the period of time that involves the real Police members on Feb 21, 2011 would be dropped or rejected.

 

Journal Entry Sept 8, 2012 Police Members Imposters on April 13 and June 4, 2012?

The second motion is to respond to the defenders motions to reject the civil lawsuit and proceedings.

In the motion it mentions that the Police members involved were not the same people, they were imposters, and now that I have been acquitted I would like to know why. The Judge before trial also dismissed several charter violation issues that were raised, in the second motion I focus more on the freedom of expression and an error that involves the seizure without warrant of private computers.

 

Journal Entry Sept 8, 2012 Repression Through Serious Illness and Cancer

I purchased bags of white marble to attenuate powerful radar assaults.

This is a part that people do not see, repression, mobbing, involves the use of radar and radiation technology to inflict serious illness and cancer during this period of time when people are already overwhelmed financially with false allegations and criminal proceedings, and during the a civil lawsuit proceeding to recover the financial loss.

It is a combination of expensive legal fees and services, transcripts to Appeal wrongful orders, , etc. combined with the need to purchase expensive radar attenuating materials metal plating, lead, marble (dolomite), dolomitic limestone, travertine, liquid bottles (focused ultrasound shielding), etc,.

 

Journal Entry Sept 8, 2012 Freedom of Expression s. 2(b) and Criminal Allegations s. 264

According the Charter Issue Judgment of June 4, 2012 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Freedom of Expression 2(b) does not protect citizens from criminal allegations s. 264 fabricated from published articles that are identified as research articles, Mobbing Research, and the Freedom of Expression 2(b) Charter Issue is dismissed. This is why I seek to address this criminal law 264 that seems to violate the Charter through article 95 C.p.c.

 

Journal Entry Sept 9, 2012 Supreme Court of Canada, Cyberbullying and Freedom of Expression

I watched part of the Supreme Court of Canada this morning about Cyberbullying and Freedom of Expression on CPAC.

This case involves the creator and founder of the only English website that involves psychological harassment, Psychological Harassment Information Association, that includes cyberbullying and mobbing, a Mobbing Research article, and freedom of expression.

An issue that I believe the Supreme Court Judges are aware of that involves legislation is that good intentions at the Supreme Court Level regarding censorship can result in miss applications and abuse at the lower court levels. (freedom of expression and censorship).

In my case, I am isolated and attacked through organized crime. The court proceedings include wrongful orders and Charter Issue judgments errors. My only tool in the pursuit of the truth and justice to break this isolation is through communication and publication, freedom of expression 2(b).

 

Journal Entry Sept 9, 2012 Crown Immune to Prosecution and Police Imposters

One issue is that there were many motions and Appeals before the Crown requested the date of April 13, 2012 for the trial on Nov 9. 2011 that involved the freedom of expression and the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial that if successful would circumvent the right to a trial section 11(d).

Another issue that I do not fully understand, the Police members on April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012 were imposters, they were not the same people, which is linked to the vulnerability mentioned in the Motion. A possible theory is that the Crown is immune to prosecution and the Police members are not, resulting in imposters.

 

Journal Entry Sept 9, 2012 Supreme Court of Canada vs Private Sector Cyberbullying Reporting System

I believe that the combination of school, government, and cyberspace private sector is the solution to cyberbullying and not censoreship legislation linked to the Charter freedom of expression 2(b). A Bullying or Cyberbullying Reporting System that is combined with the Cyberspace Communities existing efforts to prevent cyberbullying and ban offenders. (see the Bullying or Cyberbullying Reporting System page)

 

Journal Entry Sept 9, 2012 Crown Immunity and Police Imposters, Strategy?

On Nov 9, 2012 the Crown requested the date April 13, 2012 for the trial. The civil lawsuit notice was before Feb 21, 2012. On April 13, 2012 a different Crown Prosecutor was involved and from what I observed the Police members were now imposters. On June 4, 2012 the Police member imposters were different from the imposters of April 13, 2012.

The original Crown of Feb 21, 2011 to Nov 9, 2011 and Jan 12, 2012 involved in the civil lawsuits claims an immunity with difficult requirements. Theory, if the requirements fail this would leave only the Police members who would then claim they were not involved or present on April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012.

 

Journal Entry Sept 11, 2012 Day in Superior Court

Arrived in court at 9:00 am, assigned to another room for proceedings, at around 11:45 am I begin to explain my motion, immediately interrupted. The defender lawyer speaks and explains her version of facts that are different then mine, different statements about rejecting the motion and proceedings. I try to speak and interrupted immediately, proceedings will be paused till the afternoon at 2:00 pm, I ask if I will be permitted to speak at this time. This is a pattern I also experienced during the criminal proceedings.

At one point the judge mentioned that I should have Appealed the Charter Issue judgments. During the pause I conclude that this would have drain my finances further and overwhelmed me further. I conclude in a strange way that maybe the Supreme Court judges should be the ones Appealing the Charter Issues that involve the freedom of expression, entering a dwelling home without a warrant, seizing private computers without a warrant, mistaken the seizure to be the computers of my father instead of mine resulting in no need for the Crown to rebut his burden of proof, etc, to prevent the Canadian Justice System from falling into disrepute.

My motion wants to reschedule the defenders rejection claims till after the 25 of Sept to give time to the Minister of Justice to respond. I also want the Police members of April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012 to identify themselves. The judge does not understand the significance of this and neither do the defenders. I explain if the Police members claim it was them and not imposters during these proceedings, nothing changes. If the Police claim that it was not them and had nothing to do with those proceedings, this impacts the civil lawsuits in the rest of the civil proceedings. Everything is rescheduled to October 16 and 17, 2012. I again ask for the Police members to confirm their presence in the criminal proceedings before the long Oct 16 and 17 two day civil proceedings since this has a significant impact on the proceedings, this is denied and no such demand will be grant by the Superior Court or Justice Minister representative.

My feet and shin bones feel like they have been cooked by the radiation technology that I have mentioned.

 

Journal Entry Sept 11, 2012 What To Do When Police Members In Court Are Imposters?

I will file a complaint with the Police for impersonating Police members and a fraud. From what was provided to me by the defenders lawyors of the Crown prosecutors, Crown prosecutors are immune to prosecution. I will file a complaint against the Crown prosecutor with the Director of Criminal Pursuits.

Significance example: The Crown prosecutors are immune to prosecution so if they are involved in a smear campaign, long and expensive proceedings to bankrupt and drain the finances of a targeted citizen while they are attacked through cancer causing technology, conspiracy to commit a homicide through cancer, they are immune to prosecution but not Police members.


Journal Entry Sept 11, 2012 Large Debt. and No Dwelling Home

The long criminal proceedings created a large debt. that does not seem to be recoverable and a serious health, cancer, and leukemia hazard. I have been staying at my parents home to help with these costs. My parents return to the city for the winter and I am not permitted to protect and shield myself from radiation technology and powerful radar assaults during this time, winter.

 

Journal Entry Sept 12, 2012 Judgment on Charter Issues Section 8

In the above Judgment on Charter Issues several Charter Issues raised were dismissed including the first one on freedom of expression 2(b).

The one that I consider interesting is the one concerning the seizure of private computers. The Crown has to refut his burden of proof for the seizure of the private computers or it is a Charter violation. He has to justify the seizure but in the criminal proceedings the Crown is doing the opposite, he is saying he does not need them and does not have any copies, a Charter violation. In the Judgment the Judge says something like obviously the computers that were seized were not the computers of Danny Hunt and the Charter Issue is dismissed.

 

Journal Entry Sept 12, 2012 Police Cases and Charter Issues Theory

When the Police spend months building a case and thousands of Police hours the last thing that they want to do is "blow their case" through a Charter Issue violation like a warrantless search and seizure, even more so if they are certain that there is a crime and conviction.

In this case the Police actually did a warrantless search and seizure, a different pattern or behavior. The non-criminal responsibility before trial would circumvent these Charter Issues and make the seizure legal too if successful.

 

Journal Entry Sept 12, 2012 Homicides Through Cancers, Leukemia, Bone Cancer, and Lung Cancer

"My feet and shin bones feel like they have been cooked by the radiation technology that I have mentioned."

During these long and delay criminal proceedings I was attacked from neighboring homes, public places, and the court house with powerful radar that focused on the shin bone, the testicles, and the lungs. In my van during the winter I would wake to powerful streams aimed at my shin bones, testicles, and lungs. I remember a few times when I woke feeling as if a powerful stream from a neighboring home had been aimed through my back and lungs, lung damage and scaring that can manifest it's self at a later time as lung cancer. This neighbor's father had recently died of lung cancer and he has now recently moved away.

I was overwhelmed by both the cost of the criminal proceedings and the costs needed to protect and shield myself from these combined with the constant threat of psychiatric intervention for taking protective measures and buy the materials I needed.

 

Journal Entry Sept 12, 2012 Mental Illness, Disability, and Vulnerability

I see three vulnerabilities that I faced during these criminal proceedings.

1. the first is the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial that if successful would circumvent my right to trial and several charter issue presentations at trial.

2. police threats of intervention for taking protective measures from powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes, which leads to incarceration during the criminal proceedings and the psychiatric assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial.

3. following the Nov 9, 2012 order for trial and the Crown stating again that there were no computer copies at the Superior Court, linked to the Charter Issue violation mentioned previously, the Crown was replaced by another and the Police seem to be imposters on April 13, 2012 and June 4, 2012. I did not say anything at that time because of this vulnerability and different threats such as continued self representation and participating defense lawyers (mobbing), psychiatric intervention, etc. I was acquitted on June 4, 2012 and now trying to address this issue.

 

Journal Entry Sept 13, 2012 Complaint to Police and Director of Criminal Proceedings

I sent a complaint to the Police regarding the Police members being different people on April 13, 2012 than those of June 4, 2012 through fax and was told today that it was received and to wait for them to contact me.

I sent them a copy of part of the transcript of April 13, 2012. I missed this during the proceedings of April 13, 2012, Charter Issues presentations that involved the freedom of expression, entering a dwelling home without a warrant, and seizing private computers, etc. the Crown needing to refut and justify this seizure without a warrant that is mentioned often in the description of the proceedings in the above motions, the agt. involved in seizing my computers says that my father not only gave consent to seize the computers as is written in the Police report of February 21, 2012 but also claimed that the computers were his, which contradicts the Police report mentioned above "error in Charter Issue" (unavailable/censored).

One reason I missed this must be because I have been stating in all the proceedings including the Charter Issue presentations, which includes the Police report, that they were my computers without any interruption, which means that all of these statements and description of the proceedings above were dismissed, and this is the statement that the Judge used to dismiss this Charter violation.

 

Journal Entry Sept 13, 2012 the Commission des Droits de la Personne

The Commission des Droits de la Personne has not accepted my complaint and will not submit it for review to the Human Rights Tribunal and their Judges.

 

Journal Entry Sept 13, 2012 Isolation and Regimes

I feel very isolated in this Canadian British regime, no support or action from government institutions, and repetitive radar assaults at my shin bones and lungs for over a year while I tried to defend myself, address all the Charter Issues mentioned, and now try to recover the large financial loss under the same conditions, repetitive radar assaults aimed at the shin bone, lungs, and testicles.

 

Journal Entry Sept 15, 2012 Abuse of Process and Charter Violation Issue

One of the main issues during the criminal proceedings has been the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial that circumvents the presentation of Charter issues at trial and the right to a trial if successful. This was the subject of an Abuse of Process, an error of law linked to June 13, 2011, that became Out of Jurisdiction On October 21, 2011 when the Appeal at the Superior Court "ceased to exist", the judge did not have the Appeal, only the Abuse of Process motion.

The other main issue during the criminal proceedings was the seizure of private computers without a warrant, the Crown not refuting his burden of proof for this seizure without a warrant, a Charter violation, the possible use of a Police imposter on April 13, 2012 to help escape this Charter violation through a statement that I did not hear and contradicts the Police report. The statement and Charter Issue judgment claims that the computers seized were those of my father, which contradicts the proceedings and the Police report.

Another Important issue of what has already been mentioned, these criminal proceedings were long and costly, there was no Stay of Proceedings given the Appeal "ceasing to exist", and all the Charter Issues were dismissed. I now have to seek recourse through the civil court to recover the loss and address these Charter Issues violations at the risk of more loss.

 

Journal Entry Sept 16, 2012 Freedom of Expression and the News

Following the arrest of Feb 21, 2011 that consists of fabricating criminal allegations from a published Mobbing Research article published on CNN iReport and shared on the Facebook CSPAN discussion area, where a Laval person would have seen this topic and felt threatened, etc, I contacted several human rights organizations, government institutions "that protect citizens", and the News. You would think that criminal allegations fabricated from a published Mobbing Research article that involve the freedom of expression would interest the News media, none have responded.

The British regimes claim that the freedom of expression protects us and democracy from different forms of dictatorships and abuse, and not a well armed population that can deter these or rise up to remove them.

 

Journal Entry Sept 16, 2012 Freedom of Expression and the News, No Excuse

Given the fact that I see the Canadian British regime News media report on all kinds of news, crimes, and criminal allegations I see no excuse with the exception of being a targeted citizen in a controlled News media regime.