1. How, Hon. Mr. Justice M. McLeod
deliberately wrongly convicted me? His pay is $300,000 a year.
Synopsis of the Case: Cyclist
came into the driving lane, kicked my car, got hit, fell down. He got up, kicked the car several times and
broke the window glass. He lied to the
police that the car had gone into the bicycle lane and ran over him. Independent witness, Ms. Adrienne Koenig Woodyard a leading lawyer in Toronto, who claimed that she
was two cars behind me told the police that the car went into the bicycle lane
and hit the cyclist. Even after I showed
her the actual video of
the accident in court, she still insisted that the cyclist was in the
bicycle lane when the car hit him. In
spite of my repeatedly telling the police that the cyclist came into the
driving lane, the police did not believe me.
Based on their investigation the Police Constable, Mr.
William Ng, #9683 concluded that
the accident had occurred in the bicycle lane and charged me with dangerous
driving and assault with a weapon.
The Crown Attorney (public prosecutor) Ms. Melissa Atkin
called this an open and shut case and offered me four months in jail with a ban
on driving in exchange for a guilty plea.
I told her that I had a video from a nearby building showing that the
cyclist came into the driving lane and kicked my car, she insisted that she had
an independent witness.
However, during the trial, the cyclist knew that my
car had a dashcam.
Afraid that I might produce the dashcam video,
he accepted in court that he had come into the driving lane to hear what I was
saying when the car hit him. I produced
in court the video from the nearby building which showed the cyclist, leaving
the bicycle lane, crossing the buffer zone, going past the bollards and kicking
my car.
1. Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod
repeatedly emphasizes in his Judgment as well as during the hearings, that my
charter challenge application was very poorly drafted and my knowledge of law
is very poor. When during the hearing,
Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod told me that my application was poorly drafted, I
immediately asked him which portion, to which he replied that he did not know,
prompting me to tell him that he talks without understanding what he is talking
about.
2. Almost
three weeks before the trial, when Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod told me that he will
conduct my trial, I immediately asked him how he was selected to conduct my
trial and how Mr. Mark Reiger was selected as the
Crown Attorney. His reply was that he
will not disclose the internal workings of the Ontario Courts to me.
3. When
fair trial is guaranteed, the Judge and the Crown Attorney have to be selected
in a fair manner. That does not mean
they will select some judge who will be vindictive towards me or specializes in
deliberately wrongly convicting those who are innocent. What is there to hide and why do they want to
hide, on how they are selected, unless or otherwise their intentions are not bonafide? Cases
should be randomly allotted by computer to Judges or by lots. Why was Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod hiding on how
he was selected to hear my case?
Subsequently also, I have written to him several times asking him how he
was selected to conduct my trial. Even
on the date of the trial I had asked him on how he was selected to conduct my
trial. He has not replied till
date.
4. During
the trial, I proved in court that the victim was lying. I also proved that the police officer Mr.
William Ng, #9683, had deliberately misled the court into believing that he had
not asked the victim where the collision had taken place, even after he was
given a break to go through his notes. I
also proved that the police officer had not investigated the case properly as
there were other cameras in that area, he had not bothered to collect the
evidence from it. I also proved that the police officer’s investigations were
wrong. Whereas, the police officer
testified that the collision had occurred in the bicycle lane based on a gash
on the road, the road being porous, etc., I produced the video from the nearby
building which disproved it.
5. The
case itself is almost three years old.
During these three years, the Judges, Crown Attorneys have repeatedly
violated my rights, including illegal arrests and
detentions which was proved in the
Superior Court. The time gap between
the conclusion of the trial 8th of July, 2021 and the judgment 5th
of Jan 2022 is almost six months.
6. During
the trial when I ask the witness or police officer questions, if the witness
stammers or struggles or gives the wrong reply, Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod will
answer, will interrupt and answer the question.
Even if I repeatedly tell him that the question is for the witness,
Justice McLeod will argue with me for fifteen minutes giving time for the
witness to think of an answer or telling me that the witness will not answer to
that question.
7. The
independent witness Ms. Adrienne
Koenig Woodyard, a lawyer with a top law firm in
Toronto, who came to give evidence, started story telling while giving
evidence. I objected to it and told the
crown Mr. Mark Reiger to ask questions. Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod, said in a loud voice
noted and did nothing about it. I again
objected. He did not do anything. She was storytelling. When asked where the cyclist was when the
collision took place, she said although she was one or two cars behind the
cyclist, the cyclist was in the bicycle lane when the car hit him. I told her that based on her evidence the
Judge can send me to jail, I showed her the video from the nearby
building which shows the cyclist moving into the driving lane to kick my car,
when the car hit him, she still insisted that the car went into the bicycle
lane and hit the cyclist. I asked her
whether she was a responsible person, the Judge Hon. Mr. McLeod said, that he
will not allow me to ask her that question.
8. I
sent emails to her colleagues showing the video and her testimony asking them
whether they were proud of her testimony.
She has filed criminal charges against me for harassment for repeatedly
sending her emails as four of the emails sent to her office have reached
her. If she did not wish to receive my
emails, then she should have marked it as spam or blocked them. The police have filed criminal charges
against me for harassment. If that was
harassment, then her testimony was perjury as she has probably not seen the
accident, but later seen the car standing in the bicycle lane and concluded
that the car had gone into the bicycle lane and hit the cyclist?
9. Just
show the video of the accident to any person on the street and ask them what
they think of the evidence given by Ms. Adrienne Koenig Woodyard. Do they really feel that she has seen the
accident or do they feel that she had seen what had happened after the accident(after the accident the car went into the bicycle
lane) and decided to take a guess?
Giving evidence in court is not like going to the bar blabbering and
coming back. You should understand the
responsibility involved with giving evidence, more so, she should understand
that as she is a lawyer.
10.
Hon. Mr. Justice M. McLeod has
given his reasons in a plain white piece of paper without any signature. When asked repeatedly, when he was going to
sign it and send it, he told the court clerk to put my microphone on mute. (If any of you know him, please ask him, why
he is refusing to sign it? Or when he will sign it? This was on the 5th of Jan, 2022)
till date he has not signed it. After
putting my mic on mute,
he went about insulting me, making false and baseless allegations
against me and I could not reply to his false and baseless allegations.
11.
Even if we are present in
court, they do the same thing. First,
they hear all the lawyers and send them away.
People like me who question them, is the last to be
heard, with no other witnesses. They
bully, harass and intimidate us. If we
still dare to question them, they arrest us and keep
us in the detention center without any reason like Hon. Madam Justice Leslie
Chapin did.
12.
During the trial when I asked
the police officer Mr. William Ng, #9683, whether he was aware of bill C26 for
the protection of property, the officer said that he was not aware. Which means that Bill C26 was just an eyewash
to escape the wrath of the Chinese government.
When asked what anyone should do if someone keeps repeatedly kicking my
car, he said, that you cannot do anything other than calling the police. When asked whether the public will consider
his reply as sensible. The constable
said yes. When asked whether the police would attend to such complaints. The
constable Mr. William Ng, #9683 said yes.
Hon. Mr. Justice Mcleod immediately interfered
and said that the Police Constable will not reply to the question.
13.
Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod agreed
that the public will not find the constable’s reply as sensible, he also said
the police will not attend to such complaints.
The Judge intervened because, he was afraid that the constable might
blabber that he has been instructed by his higherups
to ignore bill c-26. Hon. Mr. Justice
McLeod, said that he will answer the question on bill c26. During the trial he told me that any use of
weapon in defense of a property is not acceptable and excessive use of
force. When I asked him where he got
this definition from, I have also written to him as well as asked him during
the hearings, he has not answered me till date.
At the hearing on the 5th of Jan, 2022 when I again asked
him, what anyone should do, if someone kept repeatedly kicking their car, he
told the court clerk to put my mic on mute.
Details are given below.
14.
Please look at this
video. At 8 seconds on the video,
you will hear a muffled thud, which is the sound of the cyclist kicking my car
as he anticipated that I might enter the bicycle lane. However, at 8 seconds please see where my
driver’s side wheel is? It is on the left
margin. I could not have gone into the
bicycle lane. On the other hand, the
cyclist has left the bicycle lane, entered the driving lane and kicked my car.
15.
However, the Judge, Hon. Mr.
Justice McLeod’s interpretation of the video is, that I suddenly halted my car
in front of the bicycle, because of which the cyclist had kicked my car or
lightly tapped my car with his hand. The
police officer gave evidence that there was a big dent with a shoe mark where
the cyclist had kicked my car. In court
I asked the Police Constable Mr. William Ng, where I was driving my car, when
the cyclist kicked my car, he agreed that I was in the driving lane. Anyone can see my video and decide where my
car was, when the cyclist kicked my car.
Cyclist kicks my car as I am
driving in the driving lane:
16.
Please watch the next video of
the actual accident.
17.
The Judge says that the
cyclist had come into the driving lane to hear what I was saying, when I ran
over him. During the trial I had
specifically asked Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod what the cyclist was trying to do
when he crossed into the driving lane.
The Judge told me that he had come into the driving lane to kick my
car. However, the Judge has gone home
and changed his mind while writing the order.
That is Hon. Mr.Justice
McLeod. The cyclist lied to the police
that I had gone into the bicycle lane and ran over him. The Judge Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod says, that
was because the cyclist was confused about which the driving lane was and which
the bicycle lane was, hence, he told the police that I had gone into the
bicycle lane and ran over him. Had that
been the case, the cyclist would have always been riding his bicycle in the
driving lane, but that is not the case as is evident from my dashcam video which shows him riding in the bicycle lane(watch
from 12 seconds on, the cyclist is correctly riding in the bicycle lane). During the trial, the Judge did not ask the
cyclist any questions. Nothing. Then why did he not clarify whether the
cyclist was confused. Unfortunately, in
law, ignorance is not a defense.
18.
When the police officer Mr.
William Ng gave evidence, I asked him whether the accident could have taken
place in the driving lane, he said not possible, not with all the evidence that
was present at the site. I asked him
whether he would have charged me if the accident had taken place in the driving
lane, he said no. The Judge also added
that the constable would not have charged me.
19.
Ask any reasonable person what
he thinks what the cyclist was trying to do?
Was he trying to kick my car or did he come closer to listen to what I
was saying? Was the cyclist confused on
whether he was in the driving lane or was he lying? At the time of the accident, if he had lied
to the police, that I had gone into the bicycle lane and run over him, how did
he change his mind when he gave evidence in court and tell the Judge that he
had come into the driving lane to hear what I was saying?
20.
He had not seen my video
earlier, then how would he have known that he was in the driving lane? In the statement given to the police, he does
not say anything about coming closer to the car to hear what I was saying. Rather he said that he saw my car coming at
him to hit him as he was riding in the bicycle lane. Why the Judge did not think of all these
points?
21.
In court I specifically
asked the Judge what he thinks of this video. The Judge told me that the cyclist came into
the driving lane with the intention of kicking my car. Five months later while writing the order,
somehow, he has changed his mind. But,
before changing his mind, did he ask me whether it would be prejudicial to my
interest? No. After the cyclist gave evidence, the Judge did not even ask him
even one question.
22.
Even before the trial, I
requested Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod to hear my charter challenge
application. He told me that it was
poorly drafted. I immediately asked him,
which portion? To which he replied that
he did not know. Prompting me to ask him
whether he talks without understanding what he is talking about.
23.
The case should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Ask any
reasonable person what he thinks of the videos? During the trial when I posed certain
questions in Physics on how force is calculated as mass multiplied by
acceleration, on how the direction of the car can change due to various
factors. Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod
immediately agreed that from the evidence produced it was not sure how the car
ended up going into the bicycle lane after the accident.
24.
The cyclist himself admitted
in court that the collision occurred in the driving lane. However, in his order Hon. Mr. Justice McLeod
has stated, that although he is not sure where the accident had taken place
whether it was the driving lane or the bicycle lane, however, I am guilty of
dangerous driving as my car according to him was travelling in a dangerous
manner. However, during the trial, Hon.
Mr. Justice McLeod exclaimed “Now we all know that the accident had taken place
in the driving lane.” Later on he has
changed his mind on his own. Moreover, if
you sit before the camera and watch the video the whole day, you will find that
every car in the video is travelling in a dangerous manner.
25.
I have asked this question on
how cases are allotted to Judges to several other Judges in the
Superior court. Hon. Madam Justice Favreau said that
she will answer any other question other than that question. Hon. Mr. Justice David Corbett refused to
answer the question.
26.
Hon. Mr. Justice Lederer, Hon. Mr. Justice
Graeme Mew and Hon. Madam Justice Sachs refused to answer the question.
Hon. Mr. Justice Andres Schreck told me that cases
are allotted to Judges based on availability. After sometime he told me
that he was not available for the hearing date. I immediately told him to
recuse himself. He was still adamant about hearing the case.
27.
Before I asked this question, in Canada no one knew that cases should be
allotted to Judges in a fair manner and impartial manner. For example, if
in a court, there are five Judges who hear criminal matters, five civil
matters, five family matters, etc., who among those five will hear your case
should be based on random allotment.
Judges cannot select their docket.
That would be biased. After
emailing several times, the coordinator at the Court of Appeal for Ontario told
me that they are allotting cases to Judges on a random basis, but she will not
entertain any other question from me on the matter.
28.
Few years ago, when the four
senior-most Judges in the Supreme Court of India had accused the Chief Justice
of allotting certain cases to certain benches, there was furor across the
country and the Judges who were to hear those cases recused themselves from
those cases.
29.
Three years ago, when they
charged me, the police told me that I had gone into the bicycle lane and ran
over the cyclist. That is what the
cyclist told them, further corroborated by the independent witness and their
video evidence. Even during the trial,
the first thing that the officer told was, that the cyclist was in the bicycle
lane, when I had gone into the bicycle lane and hit the cyclist as was evident
from all the evidence at the scene. I proved that he was wrong
by producing a video from a nearby building. In spite of all that is mentioned above, Hon.
Mr. Justice McLeod convicted me.
30.
It is common knowledge that they deliberately convict those who are
self-represented as they want everyone to hire lawyers, so that the salary of
lawyers will go up, consequently the salary of Crown Attorneys and Judges. Even during the
pre-trial hearings, there is blatant
discrimination inside the courtrooms. Those who are represented by lawyers are heard
first. Then they insult, humiliate, yell and scream at those who are
self-represented. The message that they give is, hire a lawyer
if you want to be treated in a fair manner.
31.
The salary of a Crown Attorney is $225,000. Some of them are so dull headed that they
will not understand even a simple computer program. If you doubt this, I will write a few simple
computer programs, let me see how many of them can understand it. Instead of studying law, if they had studied
computer science, they will not even get a job in the mail room.
32.
Have you ever seen an advertisement for a computer professional for
$300,000 or $225,000 in Toronto? An ad
for $150,000 is very, very rare. Even
$100,000 a year is very rare. If they
are so dull headed that they will be unfit for employment at minimum wages in
the software field, why are they paid $225,000 and $300,000 a year in law. They have been manipulating the justice
system, deliberately wrongly convicting those who are self-represented so that
everyone will hire lawyers, the salary of the lawyers goes up, consequently
their pay.