Notice Of Appeal

Thank you to the New Denver resident who generously contributed in order to file this notice of appeal and order the transcripts of trial. Of course it is a breach of fundamental justice that the Canadian Judicial Council maintains that Judges have a discretion to reject the transcript if they want to, particularly if the transcripts indicates wrong doing within the legal system.

filed July 23rd, 2021
The grounds for appeal are

  1. No ability to pay fine. I exercised appropriate due diligence to resolve the issue by attempting alternate methods of payment including transfers from the shareholders loan account which had been used as legal currency in Holsworth v Holsworth. I explained to the court my indebtness and inability to comply. The current order is a continuation of the threat to my security of the person as it threatens imprisonment for failure to pay a fine.
  2. Refusal of the Court to hear Abuse of Process argument at all pre trial hearings is a breach of fundamental justice.
    “Compelling an accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community’s sense of fair play and decency” and “would tarnish the reputation of the court” Conway
    “Procedural irregularity during a criminal trial that is an error of law may amount to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, and can lead to a conviction being thrown out. Such is the strength of the law’s concern for proper procudure.” R. v. Khan.
    Usually a court can defer rulings however where the “interests of justice necessitate an immediate decision”. This will include where “the trial court itself is implicated in a constitutional violation” or where “substantial on-going constitutional violations require immediate attention.” De Sousa
  3. It is an error in law to dismiss my constitutional question regarding the constitutionality of the court by claiming it is a “frivolous and vexatious argument and without merit with no chance of success”.
    “I am mindfull of the right of the accused to make ‘full answer and defence’ if the court is empowered to reject a Charter defence advanced by the accused without hearing either the evidence which the accused proposes to tender in support of it or full submissions on the issue, it is difficult to see how the accused can be said to have had the opportunity to make full answer and defence” R v. Mills 1999 CanLII 637 (SCC) or where the proceedings are “oppressive or vexatious” Nixon
    To claim a discretion regarding the evidentiary weight of the transcript without allegations of fraud is contrary to fundamental justice and refusing to hear arguement confirms the abuse of process.
  4. There is a miscarriage of justice. The Justice Department cannot legally attempt to enforce the law whilst breaching the law by refusing to respond to a Charter complaint as outlined in the Constitutional Question put to the Court on July 15th, 2021. It is troubling to have the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner investigating the conduct of the Minister of Justice in regards to complying with his duty at the same time I am being prosecuted by the Minister of Justice.
  5. There is an abuse of process inherent in this current appeal as the appeal is based upon the transcript. The Canadian Judicial Council claims that judges have a discretion in their acceptance of the evidence of the transcript. I would submit that allegations of fraud is the only lawful reason. There have been no allegations of fraud ever made to me. Although I have alleged fraud against me in regards to the integrity of the transcript.
  6. Insisting that I attend a Court, under threat of imprisonment, that claims a discretion in regards to the best evidence that a Canadian could provide, is contrary to fundamental justice. “Is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and indepedence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office” and must be “seen from the perspective of the public not the judge” Marshall Test
    and
    “a judge is disqualified if a fair minded observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge MIGHT not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the Judge is required to decide. That principle gives effect to the requirement that justice should both be done and be seen to be done, a requirement which reflects the fundamental importance of the principle that the tribunal be independant and impartial….lest the integrity of the judicial system be undermined…..the question is one of possibility, not probability”
  7. Such further grounds as I may advise and this honourable court may permit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *