Sidebar

07
Wed, Dec

Gun Control and Mental Illness, My Personal Experience in a Defenseless Population British Regime - (Blogs)

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

"My personal experience in Canada is that when it comes to repression, corruption, and organized crime, which are linked to population subjugation through organized crime and the need for a defenseless population the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any government institutions like a human rights commission are not what protects a free society."


"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 from neighboring homes, public places, and court house. The police, "calls of suspicious vehicles", attempted to intervene several times, psychiatric intervention that would lead to incarceration and an "unlawful" assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial for my behavior of attempting to avoid and shield myself from these assaults. Criminal harassment participants tried provocation and different forms of abuse to push me to anger in attempts to make me appear aggressive, violent, and "deranged", which I linked to this vulnerability of psychiatric intervention, incarceration, and an assessment order that can find me guilty without a trial and dismiss several charter violations, the freedom of expression, entering a home without a warrant, seizing private computers without a warrant, and make any copies legal too. I was acquitted on June 4, 2012 and could not address criminal code laws that infringe on the freedom of expression, the right to a trial, privacy, .. constitutional questions due to organized crime, the ongoing powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes."

"My functionality and personal hygiene was greatly reduced because of these ongoing radar assaults, and this was used by criminal harassment participants, degradation and threats, threats of psychiatric intervention."

Notes: The Canadian Criminal Code is not new but still contains a law that violates a basic human right, part of the United Nations treaties, The Right to a Trial. The Freedom of Expression has been weakened, criminal allegations, false allegations, allegations that do not match the criminal code definition, etc, are not protected by the Charter, the Freedom of Expression, and go to trial to determine the validity of the criminal allegations. (see MENTAL ILLNESS, DISCRIMINATION AND STEREOTYPES, CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION for more)

"It is obvious to me that the Police and Crown prosecutor needed non-criminal responsibility before trial to escape the false allegations, the charter violations, and to make any existing copies from the seizure of private computers without a warrant legal too."

"The Crown prosecutor could have dropped the charges within the first month of the proceedings when I gave him the published Mobbing Research article in question, he didn't, he persisted with the demand for non-criminal responsibility assessment order "needed to be completed to complete the file" .. , which turned these proceedings into very long ones while I continued to be assaulted, he was replaced once he stated not having copies at the Superior Court, the new Crown prosecutor continued the proceedings, didn't present the "victim" to testify and didn't want to use the evidence printouts either, which I used to show my innocents etc."

"I could not continue a following civil lawsuit to recover the financial loss due to these proceedings and to address the charter violations, constitutional questions, the right to trial."

Quebec Human Rights Commission, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "Free Press"

"I contacted the Quebec Human Rights commission regard the obvious violation of the Freedom of Expression and Discrimination, the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial when successful violates a person's right to a trial, and is said to be "discriminatory" and to infringe of s.15 discrimination of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Canadian Supreme Court in R v Swain. The complaint was dismissed by the Quebec Human Rights Commission.

I contacted the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and filed a compliant, Freedom of Expression, Discrimination, Right to a Trial, with an added compliant regarding being a human right defender that defends human rights regarding discrimination and sexual harassment. The UN confirmed the reception of my complaint several times, said that I would receive a reply, to this day I have not received a reply from them and they have not addressed the issue.

The Canadian media, the news, never reported the criminal allegations and obvious Freedom of Expression violation, I contacted many, which leads me to believe that they are censored by the Canadian regime and "secret police".

Note: The British regime strategy is to use time to eliminate a person's means of subsistence, homelessness, and inflict deadly cancers through repetitive radar assaults, death through natural causes, so with this knowledge I cannot help but to wonder if these human rights organizations did not expect the issue, human rights violations in Canada, to simply "go away" given enough time."

Conclusion

"The Police, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Constitution, the Canadian Courts and judges, the Quebec Human Rights Commission, The Government and Ministers (Justice, Public Safety, etc), the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the "free press", which seems to be very control and censored, are not what protects a free society and my guess is that a well armed population that different forms of dictatorships, population abusers (Marie Antoinette), organized crime ("secret police" and subjugation through organized crime), etc, fear is.

It is also my guess that some of these massacres and rage shootings are organized crime acts of terror to advocate a defenseless population through stereotypes and rhetoric while hiding the cause.

Rage Shooting Factors

"The current issue on the news is Gun Control and Rage Shootings, for which I have a solution, Rage Shooting Factors for prevention similar to Suicide Factors but these seem to be censored too as the media goes towards rhetoric linked to stereotypes, mental illness and "deranged people", discrimination, and organized crime strategy."

 

Journal Entry Dec 30, 2012 Psychological Evaluation, Right to Trial

"Following the arrest of Feb 21, 2012 the -- Police made a demand that I remain incarcerated for a psychological evaluation, I dismissed the defense lawyer who told me I had "no choice but to remain incarcerated for this evaluation". I dismissed his services, its a published Mobbing Research article, I have have a website too, etc, .. , he later returned and told me I would be released.

In court I was surprised by a demand for an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial, when I objected the Judge made it clear to me, I either accept these conditions for release or I do not, I accepted them for release.

I later took steps to Appeal this "unlawful" assessment order, several court appearances, Appeals Court and Superior Court, delays, an Appeal linked to an Abuse of Process motion "ceased to exist" at the Superior Court hearing, etc, no statutes were set and it expired while I was being pressured with incarceration to comply with this "unlawful" assessment order before trial, which from what I understand the Crown Prosecutor had to state that it had indeed expired in a court to prevent any attempts to incarcerate me to complete this assessment order.

During this period of time I was assaulted with radar from neighboring homes, the -- Police came to my home several times, "suspicious vehicles" in some of the cases without revealing which neighbor had called, etc, the behavior linked to protection measures and avoiding radar assaults would justify psychiatric intervention, which leads to incarceration during this period of time, defense lawyers who tell me I have "no choice but to remain incarcerated" or participating defense lawyers, and the assessment order.

These didn't work, and I believe another method was used to make a demand for an evaluation during this period of time, which I believe is through my father, but could also be a method used by the Police or Crown prosecutor. I do not know what this method may have been and my doctor does not know either or aware of this "under cover" psychiatric evaluation demand either.

Addressing Charter Violations and Organized Crime, A Broken System

After being acquitted I could not address the charter violations in a civil lawsuit, the right to trial, freedom of expression, and right to privacy due to the ongoing radar assaults from neighboring homes, public places, and court house too, organized crime.

I believe that the Canadian Criminal Code still contains a basic human right violation because it is being used by organized crime, and organized crime prevent citizens from addressing this charter of rights, and basic human rights violation."

 

DISCRIMINATION, MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-892846

"When non-criminal responsibility before trial is used and successful you are found guilty without a trial but not criminally responsible due to mental illness, which means that any charter violations such as entering a home without a warrant and seizing private computers without a warrant is now automatically dismissed, and any copies of the "unlawful" seizure are now legal too. Why does such a law that circumvents the right to trial, an international human rights violation, still exist in the Canadian Criminal Code in 2012? ..

My experience is that non-criminal responsibility before trial, false allegations, and charter violations are combined with powerful radar assaults during long and delayed criminal proceedings, and during any attempts to address this Charter violation and Constitutional violation in civil lawsuits after being acquitted, which would explain why in Canada a law that circumvents a citizens right to a trial, a basic human right, still exists in 2012."

Non-Criminal Responsibility Before trial (discriminatory)

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 SCR 933, Supreme Court of Canada
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii104/1991canlii104.html
"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 decision‑making 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 defence and not as a consequence of the prosecution's having raised the issue in the middle of the trial process.

R. v. Langlois, 2005 BCCA 162 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca162/2005bcca162.html
[23]In R. v. Swain, 1991 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the accused’s rights in the context of the operation of the insanity defence under the Code prior to the amendments in 1992 which brought in the NCRMD provisions. One of the issues in that case was whether the Crown could raise the issue of insanity over the wishes of the accused. The Court concluded that the common law rule that allowed the Crown to raise the accused’s mental state before a verdict had been rendered violated the accused’s rights to have control over his own defence. In so deciding, the Court confirmed (at p. 972): Given that the principles of fundamental justice contemplate an accusatorial and adversarial system of criminal justice which is founded on respect for the autonomy and dignity of human beings, it seems clear to me that the principles of fundamental justice must also require than an accused person have the right to control his or her own defence. -- [24]The Supreme Court’s response to its finding was to vary the common law rule to allow the Crown to raise the issue of the mental capacity of the accused only after the court had concluded that the accused is otherwise guilty of the offence — the procedure adopted in the NCRMD Code provisions in 1992.

R. v. Wells, 2004 ABCA 371 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abca/doc/2004/2004abca371/2004abca371.html
[8] The following Criminal Code sections are relevant to the defence of NCRMD:
16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.
(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.
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.
(2) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused is unfit to stand trial for an offence that is prosecuted by way of summary conviction, the court may only order the assessment if
(a) the accused raised the issue of fitness; or
(b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is fit to stand trial.
(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.
672.34 Where the jury, or the judge or provincial court judge where there is no jury, finds that an accused committed the act or made the omission that formed the basis of the offence charged, but was at the time suffering from mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection 16(1), the jury or the judge shall render a verdict that the accused committed the act or made the omission but is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
[10] The Crown’s ability to raise the issue of an accused’s mental capacity is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Swain. Swain confirmed that when an accused does not want to rely on a s. 16 defence of NCRMD, the Crown may raise the issue independently. By doing so the Crown helps ensure that an accused is not wrongly convicted. However, in order to be minimally intrusive on the accused’s right to control the conduct of his defence, the Crown must wait to raise the issue until the trier of fact has decided the accused is guilty of the offence. If the accused is acquitted, the Crown cannot raise the issue.

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46
Where court may order assessment
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.
Limitation on prosecutor’s application for assessment of fitness
(2) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused is unfit to stand trial for an offence that is prosecuted by way of summary conviction, the court may only order the assessment if
(a) the accused raised the issue of fitness; or
(b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is fit to stand trial.
Limitation on prosecutor’s application for assessment
(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.