INJUSTICE IN CANADA

 

Hon. Mr. Justice Andres Schreck helps criminals:

 

1.    Hon. Mr. Justice Schreck, instead, of condemning Hon. Madam Justice Leslie Chapin, Crown Attorneys Mr. Sean Husband, Ms. Melissa Atkin, Ms. Mary Humphrey, Mr. Daniel Brandes, court staff Ms. Beverly Leonard, Ms. Anna Tenhouse, others, who have broken the law, illegally arresting me, imprisoning me, naming them, publicly shaming them, issuing orders for action to be taken against them, Justice Schreck makes it appear that it was some small mistake they had committed for which I was the reason.  If a Judge deliberately breaks the law, then it is the biggest breach of trust for which they should be given the maximum prison sentence.

 

2.   This is not a case where police arrest a person by mistake and keep him in detention.  This was deliberate, wanton criminal activity by the Judge, the Crown attorneys and then being prevented from filing appeals which Hon. Mr. Justice Andras Scheck did not see as wrong.   Please check his name in google, he is the Judge whom the media celebrates as a Champion of Human Rights.

 

3.   My other question to him was, how he was selected to hear my case, he said Judges are chosen based on availability.  The trial coordinator, contacted him, he was available, so he agreed.  I told him to recuse himself from the matter as he had earlier worked as a Judge in the provincial courts, hence he will be under their influence, in this case, the Crown Attorneys and the Provincial Court Judges were facing a ten-year jail term if convicted for illegally arresting me and keeping me in prison.  Moreover, cases should be randomly allotted to Judges, neither the Crown nor the Trial Coordinator can select Judges.  He was adamant about hearing the case, he would not recuse himself.  He did not want to hear anything on why he should recuse himself from the case and told me that, that question did not arise.  The hearing could not proceed as the transcripts were not ready, the next hearing was after three weeks on the 16th of November, 2020.  He was not available as he was having another case at 10 am.  So, decided to hear my case at 9 am. 

 

4.   His claim that he had been selected to hear the case, was because he was available, if he was not available on the 16th of November, then why did he want to hear the case?  I wrote two complaints about him to the Canadian Judicial Council; till date they have not even bothered to reply.  Meanwhile the Crown Attorney Ms. Melissa Atkin said that she will not withdraw any of the bail conditions and will contest it at the bail review hearing.  However, two days before the hearing she sent me an email that she was dropping all the bail conditions including restrictions on recording in the courtroom, only one condition would stay, that I should not try to communicate with the victim.  She also withdrew the additional charge of failing to appear in court.  If she wanted to drop all the bail conditions, then why did she and the Judges arrest me and keep me in prison?  Several times.

 

5.   Moreover, I have never tried at any point to communicate with the victim.  In this case I am the victim as I have the video of the accident which shows the cyclist clearly leaving the cycle lane, crossing the buffer zone, cycling into the driving lane, kicking my car, falling down.  Then he got up, kicked my car several times, broke my window glass, he was about to assault me when I left.  Those who were nearby saw that the cyclist was at fault, they left, two cars behind me there was a lady who told the police that I went into the cycle lane and ran over the cyclist.   Based on her statement the police charged me.  I have told the Crown and the Judges right from the beginning that I have the video from a nearby building of the accident, I am willing to show it, it clearly shows that I am not at fault, but that is not acceptable to them. 

 

6.   On the 16th of November, 2020, Hon. Mr. Justice Schreck did not hear the case, he did not ask me for my submissions, never asked me whether the transcripts were complete, never had any submissions or arguments on the law on recording in this matter, never asked me whether there were any previous orders on the matter by any other Judge of a higher court, he had missed facts, mixed facts and had written his reasons only by later reading what was presented to him by way of the transcripts by the crown without realizing that some portions of the transcripts were not submitted by the crown.  The contents of the transcript were never discussed during the hearing as he was in a hurry to go to his next hearing.  He never asked whether all the transcripts were available, nor clarified himself on the matter.  His entire intention was to exonerate the crown, the Judges of the Ontario Courts who have obstructed justice, indulged in criminal acts by making light of the criminal activities of the Crown and the Judges most important was not to disclose their names in the order nor order action against them.    

 

7.   He agreed that the Judges had no business to have me arrested and kept in prison, but refused to take any action against them.  I asked him whether I should file another application initiating criminal charges against the Judges and the Crown Attorneys.  He told me that no Judge will issue orders against their fellow Judges or Crown Attorneys.  In his reasons for the order(copy enclosed, link to Canlii given below), he has not mentioned the name of any of the Judges or the Crown Attorneys who had ordered my illegal arrest as he wants them to escape.   

 

8.   Link for the order issued by Hon. Mr. Justice Andras Schreck.

 

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc7055/2020onsc7055.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHamF5YXJhagAAAAAB&resultIndex=8

 

 

9.   In paragraph 16 of his reasons for the order, Hon. Mr. Justice Schreck claims that the Judge had the authority to stop me from recording, only if there was interference with the court’s recording system according to a practice directive issued by the Ontario Courts of Justice.  Who asked them to issue such a practice directive?   That is not the law.   The first two words of the law, section 136(2)b of the Courts of Justice Act states that “nothing forbids”, which means no one can forbid my recording. 

 

10.        If there was interference with the recording system, it was the responsibility of the Ontario Courts of Justice to fix the problem associated with their recordings, not to violate my rights and prevent me from recording.  Under the law, the Judges do not have the power to prevent me from recording.  Even assuming that there is interference in the recording system at the Ontario Courts of Justice, then why, there is no problem when people record in the Superior Courts of Justice nor at the Court of Appeal for Ontario?  Why there is no problem in the Supreme Court of Canada?  They should also be having the same problem with their recording systems?  During music concerts, the organizers are recording, but there are hundreds from the audience recording as well, why they do not have any problem?  Have you ever heard in any music concert the organizers telling you not to record, as it will interfere with their recording?   The public will contribute liberally towards sending the organizers to the mental hospital. 

 

11.        Now, regarding the practice directive of the Ontario Courts of Justice, that the Judge can stop me from recording if there was an interference, we never had any discussion about this practice directive.  Hon. Mr. Justice Andras Schreck never raised the matter at the hearing neither did the crown.  After the hearing Hon. Justice Schreck has found it from somewhere and written it all by himself.  He then ridicules me saying that I am deeply suspicious of the Judicial system, as though I am some sort of lunatic.

 

12.        What is there to be suspicious?  It has been proved in court that the Judges, Crown Attorneys have broken the law repeatedly, indulged in criminal activities and illegally arrested me.  Hon. Mr. Justice Schreck has also accepted it.  During this very same period, I have written several complaints against the Crown Attorney as well as against the Judges.  No action was ever taken against the Crown.  The Hon. Chief Justice of the Ontario Courts of Justice Madam Lise Maisonneuve has written to me through her assistant Ms. King that recording was illegal and the Judges were free to prevent me from recording and wrote to me that henceforth I should not write to them any other mail complaining of being obstructed from not being allowed to record.  I wrote several complaints to the Ontario Judicial Council.  No action was taken, which means the order issued by Hon. Mr. Justice Andras Schreck holds all of them guilty including the Chief Justice.  She was the one who invented the new rule about interference with court’s recording to circumvent the law.   The very fact that she did not take action against them proves that she was aiding and abetting the crime.

 

13.        Hon. Mr. Justice Andras Schreck is also aware that Crown Attorneys and clerical staff prevent those who are self-represented from appealing in higher courts.  Then what does he mean by saying I am suspicious.  He has only said that they are guilty.  He further adds that I will have a problem during the trial as the Judges have the right to stop me from recording if there was interference with the courts recording system meaning the Judges can again arrest me at their whims and fancies claiming interference with their recording system, he himself is instigating them, legitimizing my illegal arrests.

 

14.        Hon. Mr. Justice Andras Schreck has to issue an impartial order based on law, after taking into careful consideration the arguments given by both parties.  In this case he never asked me, neither did he ask the crown in my presence for submissions on the matter, he has gone and written it on his own.  Before writing, did he ask me whether what he is writing will be prejudicial to my interests?  He has taken oath to act in a fair and impartial manner upholding the laws of the country.   

 

On the other hand, Hon. Mr. Justice Andras Schreck should have asked the Ontario Courts of Justice, the following questions.  

a)     What are these recording interferences?

b)     What are the devices which create such interferences?

c)     How long has these interferences being going on?

d)      What efforts the Ontario Courts of Justice has taken to rectify it?

e)     How many interferences were there in the last five years?

f)     What recording system do you use?

g)     How do you know that these interferences are from recording devices and not from anything else?  What is the empirical evidence behind it?

g)       Did they take any technical advice from professionals in the industry?

h)      Did they ask Professors of electronics from any reputed University to investigate the matter and give a solution to it?

i)     Did they ask professionals to investigate why other courts in Ontario such as the Superior Court, Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal for Ontario do not have such problems?

j)   During other hearings, I continue to record, why there was no interreferences?  During provincial offence hearings, I record, how come no interreferences were there?

k)   This practice directive regarding interferences was issued maybe five years ago. If the interferences had suddenly appeared from nowhere, then how come it did not happen earlier? 

15.  Just because the Ontario Courts of Justice adds a sentence that my recording should not interfere with their recording does not mean that my recording is interfering.  The whole world is not filled with fools and only those at the Ontario Courts of Justice are intellectuals.  But you might wonder as to why is it that they do not want me to record?  If you search in google you will find innumerable instances where what has happened inside the courts were deleted in the court’s recordings and were re-recorded. 

16.  When you cross-examine the witness, if the witness is not able to give an answer or if he stammers, they give a fifteen-minute break, tutor the witness and bring him back or the Judge will ask me to explain why I am asking that question?  They will do this in the presence of the witness and make me explain the reasons behind asking the question with a rejoinder from the Judge, “Oh you want to see whether they are going to answer like this”.  They erase those recordings and re-record them. All the criminal work they will do inside the courtrooms.  There are many cases where even if the police officers did not turn up to give evidence, taking advantage of the fact that those who are self-represented may not know the procedures, the Judges have convicted those who were self-represented.   

17.   Hon. Mr. Justice Andres Schreck when told that the court staff are not accepting my appeals, he said you have eventually made it here.  This application was after more than a year.  the earlier application which I had filed in August, 2019 was never heard.  Justice Schreck does not find anything wrong with it.  This is like bank robbers, when caught claiming that no crime has been committed as the money has been recovered.  Justice Schreck might argue like that.  When asked whom we should complain to if the court staff will not accept our appeals, he said that he did not know.  When asked whether he will find out and let me know at the next hearing, he said no.  He is the Judge whom the media celebrates as a champion of human rights. 

 

INJUSTICE IN CANADA