Court Presumes Aplicabililty
Current time: 10-17-2017, 06:13 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Freerangecanuck
Last Post: Freerangecanuck
Replies: 14
Views: 4851

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Court Presumes Aplicabililty
07-02-2015, 02:48 PM
Post: #1
Court Presumes Aplicabililty
A judge in Saskatoon today completely ignored a defendants request to hold a prosecutor to her burden of proof. Denied cross relying solely on an affidavit. The opinion of the Judge was that applicability of the law was presumed. This resulted in a conviction on 5 counts. The prosecutor admitted jurisdiction was an element of the offence. Jurisdiction was also presumed based on physical location. The court order was already written up by the prosecutor. She just handed them to the judge to sign.

Effectively the message send was absolute liability based on physical location and the fact that someone wrote a law.

I felt ill watching this occur. The person convicted harmed no one. His offence was simply non compliance.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 03:13 PM
Post: #2
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-02-2015 02:48 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  A judge in Saskatoon today completely ignored a defendants request to hold a prosecutor to her burden of proof.
Was the victim represented by an attorney?

American "Freedom" means that you're merely free to obey all the (phony) laws, rules, statutes and regulations.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 03:15 PM
Post: #3
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-02-2015 03:13 PM)11:11 Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 02:48 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  A judge in Saskatoon today completely ignored a defendants request to hold a prosecutor to her burden of proof.
Was the victim represented by an attorney?

No.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 03:58 PM
Post: #4
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-02-2015 03:15 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 03:13 PM)11:11 Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 02:48 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  A judge in Saskatoon today completely ignored a defendants request to hold a prosecutor to her burden of proof.
Was the victim represented by an attorney?

No.
Did the Black Robed Criminal and the persecutor team up to wear him down?

American "Freedom" means that you're merely free to obey all the (phony) laws, rules, statutes and regulations.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 04:08 PM
Post: #5
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
The court order for a conviction was already written before the trial. The prosecutor just handed the Judge the court orders she had written and just had him sign them. The only witness was in the court. A government goon who immediately after trial served the defendant notice for the same thing but different years. The govgoon was not required to face cross. So much for a fair trial and innocent til proven guilty.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 05:05 PM
Post: #6
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
Geez, sucks for me to find out this way. I didn't remember the trial date. I thought he was going to do role-playing, but it sounds like it would not have changed anything. Damn, he's a good guy too, that sucks and the agent served him after the conviction? What a weasel.

Was he taken into custody? email or skype me about it.

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 05:24 PM
Post: #7
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-02-2015 05:05 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  Geez, sucks for me to find out this way. I didn't remember the trial date. I thought he was going to do role-playing, but it sounds like it would not have changed anything. Damn, he's a good guy too, that sucks and the agent served him after the conviction? What a weasel.

Was he taken into custody?

No custody. Just fines, big ones. Unfortunately he was just not ready to face them. They surprised us with a second trial. I stood up to get Mackenzie friend status, but the Judge said he did not hear anything from the accused. The defendant failed to pick up on that cue and I was left on the sidelines. (He did not ask for it). The surprise trial was failure to appear, a $650 fine on its own. He did not enter evidence on his behalf and was crushed. He was not able to respond to the jurisdiction issue during the second trial and again roled over. (An admitted element by the crown).

The crown even provided case law that had contradictions in it which I was not able to look at until afterward, which could have been beneficial to the defence in the failure to appear.

I was hassled by the sherriff about my phone. Accused of recording the trial.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 11:41 PM
Post: #8
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-02-2015 05:24 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 05:05 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  Geez, sucks for me to find out this way. I didn't remember the trial date. I thought he was going to do role-playing, but it sounds like it would not have changed anything. Damn, he's a good guy too, that sucks and the agent served him after the conviction? What a weasel.

Was he taken into custody?

No custody. Just fines, big ones. Unfortunately he was just not ready to face them. They surprised us with a second trial. I stood up to get Mackenzie friend status, but the Judge said he did not hear anything from the accused. The defendant failed to pick up on that cue and I was left on the sidelines. (He did not ask for it). The surprise trial was failure to appear, a $650 fine on its own. He did not enter evidence on his behalf and was crushed. He was not able to respond to the jurisdiction issue during the second trial and again roled over. (An admitted element by the crown).

The crown even provided case law that had contradictions in it which I was not able to look at until afterward, which could have been beneficial to the defence in the failure to appear.

I was hassled by the sherriff about my phone. Accused of recording the trial.

I'm afraid this is where this stuff is going. A NWO system with decisions made in "Courts" based upon presumptions backed up by pay and comply or potentially die.

Can you name any names? "Judge's" name. Any links to the case. Where does it go from here? Concerning the filming of the case in "Court", spy pen is your best friend or just an audio recording, from a closed top shirt pocket is although second best, still better than nought.

The henchmen of the NWO are getting VERY scared of losing control. That is the reason for this, "they" fear losing their "power" (not authority as "they" don't have that as well those regulars that post here know) and the reaction is exactly that. "Do as I say because I said so."

This system is breaking down quickly. The sooner the better for those trapped by it.

Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment. Do not act on anything entered anywhere by the avatar known as pigpot.

All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 10:46 AM
Post: #9
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
eh, you guys north of the border have no right to due process
an irrefutable presumption here would be a denial of d.p.

you should investigate:
-- conclusory presumptions
-- irrefutable presumptions

Smelling Flowers
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 12:30 PM
Post: #10
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-03-2015 10:46 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  eh, you guys north of the border have no right to due process
an irrefutable presumption here would be a denial of d.p.

you should investigate:
-- conclusory presumptions
-- irrefutable presumptions

You are sort of correct. Our due process is different. It is known as fundamental justice. The kicker is the term is not defined and is constantly being tested at the supreme level. There is some fairly solid clear cut opinions regarding absolute and strict liability. Due diligence is the only defence for strict. Two big presumptions jurisdiction and application of law were used to defend the opinion of guilt. But without being able to test jurisdiction one could only conclude absolute liability. (You should be able to test all elements - fundamental justice or "quasi" due process)

There were other issues I won't go into, but fundamental justice was raised and ignored. I think one of the big problems was not introducing the issue into evidence or the request for judicial notice. This judge was looking for an excuse. He claimed being limited to a very narrow issue. So I am scrubbing my brain to find an issue that will allow for appeal. Might come down throwing a number of issues and seeing any stick. My hands were very tied trying to help.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2015 02:07 PM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #11
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-02-2015 11:41 PM)pigpot Wrote:  Can you name any names? "Judge's" name. Any links to the case. Where does it go from here?

I have not asked if I could provide names or any type of identifying information from the person involved. I will leave that up to him if he wishes to give information. I don't think it is my place to do that.

He may wish to appeal.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 05:34 PM
Post: #12
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
FRC sed:

"request for judicial notice. "

what would you have had the Court take Notice of ..??
coincedentially, I am working on a boilerplate version of RFJN, so all pertinent Cases are in the Record and I can file a judicial complaint

Smelling Flowers
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2015 06:22 PM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #13
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-03-2015 05:34 PM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  FRC sed:

"request for judicial notice. "

what would you have had the Court take Notice of ..??
coincedentially, I am working on a boilerplate version of RFJN, so all pertinent Cases are in the Record and I can file a judicial complaint

I know this is going to sound stupid, but they ignore their law if not requested notice and case law should be put into evidence. A sleazy way of going about things but that seems to be the way it works. In this case it would have been due process via sec. 7 of the constitution act. Could have did a blanket notice of entire act. Maybe bring in a kitchen sink and file that also.

This only applies at trial. Trials seem to have nothing to do with finding the truth.
Case law included should have been related to jurisdiction, absolute liability, strict liability, cross examination and disclosure.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 06:36 PM
Post: #14
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-03-2015 06:04 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 05:34 PM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  FRC sed:

"request for judicial notice. "

what would you have had the Court take Notice of ..??
coincedentially, I am working on a boilerplate version of RFJN, so all pertinent Cases are in the Record and I can file a judicial complaint

I know this is going to sound stupid, but they ignore their law if not requested notice and case law should be put into evidence. A sleazy way of going about things but that seems to be the way it works. In this case it would have been due process via sec. 7 of the constitution act. Could have did a blanket notice of entire act. Maybe bring in a kitchen sink and file that also.

This only applies at trial. Trials seem to have nothing to do with finding the truth.
Case law included should have been related to jurisdiction, absolute liability, strict liability, cross examination and disclosure.

dude ...
this is EXACTLY why I am constructing this Motion ...
it's a method to go back and hammer the judge as he can't say he was unaware of the cited Cases

Smelling Flowers
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 08:26 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2015 08:54 PM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #15
RE: Court Presumes Aplicabililty
(07-03-2015 06:36 PM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 06:04 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 05:34 PM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  FRC sed:

"request for judicial notice. "

what would you have had the Court take Notice of ..??
coincedentially, I am working on a boilerplate version of RFJN, so all pertinent Cases are in the Record and I can file a judicial complaint

I know this is going to sound stupid, but they ignore their law if not requested notice and case law should be put into evidence. A sleazy way of going about things but that seems to be the way it works. In this case it would have been due process via sec. 7 of the constitution act. Could have did a blanket notice of entire act. Maybe bring in a kitchen sink and file that also.

This only applies at trial. Trials seem to have nothing to do with finding the truth.
Case law included should have been related to jurisdiction, absolute liability, strict liability, cross examination and disclosure.

dude ...
this is EXACTLY why I am constructing this Motion ...
it's a method to go back and hammer the judge as he can't say he was unaware of the cited Cases

The sad thing about this at the appeal level is it will be a bitch of a time introducing anything into evidence. Basically a cross your fingers situation. During the sentencing hearing on the first trial there was a prime opportunity for a solid objection.(unfortunately missed, I was relegated to the peanut gallery) The prosecutor claimed a history which the "judge" accepted. (without evidence) The same guy who declared a limit in scope when dealing with the issues,(based on evidence) while completely ignoring the "supreme law of canada". FYI, two trials and two sentencing hearings total time was 9:30 am to 12:30 pm with 25 min. In breaks. Split into 10 and 15min. We were told not to discuss the trial during break. I was monitored by guvgoon while the prosectutor was gabbing away during this time.

So I will never doubt their ability to ignore their law again.

I see exactly where you are coming from.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)