Header




NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'Public Forum regarding our legal and judicial system
Back to Justice Done Dirt Cheap Front Page

Sunday, 28 April 2013

DAILY GLEANER - FREDERICTON, NEGLIGENT NEWSPAPER REPORTER DON MACPHERSON

DAILY GLEANER  - FREDERICTON, NEGLIGENT NEWSPAPER REPORTER


To Anne Mooers .....Managing Editor of the Daily Gleaner,

Ms Mooers,
This is to confirm my complaints about Don MacPherson's (picture provided below) inaccurate reporting that is damaging to the public interest.
IMG_8179_edited
Mr MacPherson does no investigative journalism whatsoever and stated that he just writes what he hears in court - well, he doesn't do that either. 
In the article of 24 Jan 2013 Mr MacPherson stated that it was Jenn Wambolt's lawyer who stated the option of sending Jenn to Campbellton for thirty days and it was not - it was the Crown Prosecutor who demanded that several times until the judge told him that was not going to happen and if Ms Wambolt did not want to go to Campbellton then he could not send her there for thirty days.

Mr MacPherson did not report that Claude Hache tried to violate Ms Wambolt's Charter Right and Freedom not to be involuntarily incarcerated without proof of its necessity.  The Crown Prosecutor filed no motion for the defense to respond to and neither filed nor presented any evidence whatsoever for the judge to contemplate taking this mother and wife away from her husband and children for thirty days - and did not ask for an opportunity to do this.


The Crown argued for Ms Wambolt's removal to Campbellton until the judge told him that it just wasn't going to happen and, since Ms Wambolt already has a psychiatrist they simply need to request his report on her mental health at the time of the alleged incident.
What is also disturbing about Mr MacPherson not fully reporting the facts of this story is the fact that the Crown Prosecution Services are wasting public money on a frivolous prosecution that was instigated by Barry MacKnight when he was Chief of Police, and behaving in a professionally questionable manner, which lead to Fredericton City Police Force receiving more complaints that any other in New Brunswick.  Not only is the Crown wasting money on unnecessary court proceedings against an unwell person, the Crown wanted to pay to transport her under guard to a public psychiatric facility for thirty days.  How much would that have cost this province?
When Mr MacPherson was reporting my own issues he incorrectly stated I had fired two legal aid lawyers; I wrote and told him this was wrong and I have evidence that they withdrew their service, which they had not grounds to do, and I requested that Mr MacPherson print a correction, since legal aid frequently dump clients without cause.  Mr MacPherson replied to me by email saying "It's just semantics."  Since when did inaccurate  and incorrect reporting become semantics?
While we have Blaine Higgs touring this province and the Government of New Brunswick scratching their heads to find ways to cut expenditure the Gleaner should be reporting such blatant and negligent wasting of money in the courts and the criminal justice system.
I look forward to your response.
Sarah Brooks

Friday, 1 March 2013

Court Hearing of Regina (the Queen) v. Andre Murray, 18th August 2012.




Hearing of Regina v. Andre Murray, 18th August 2012.

After the confused hearing of 17th July 2012 Andre Murray ascertained that no Information had been laid in the Provincial Court in respect of the charge of Failure to Appear. The agenda for him at the hearing on 18th July was, therefore, to confirm that charge was not being prosecuted and was not before the Judge and also to request a Show-Cause hearing for the Information requesting a Criminal Code section 810 undertaking to stay away from a complainant against Andre Murray.

He asked the judge to confirm what Informations had been laid and she confirmed non had been laid for the charge of "Failure to Appear in Court 145 CCC." The question we all wanted an answer to is... if no charge was laid why was he arrested for that offence? It would appear it was just another arbitrary warrant and arrest but... who cares? Obviously not the police or courts in spite of our charter protections to be free of such acts by public officials.

Having examined the documentation before the court in respect of all charges, Assault, Breach of an Undertaking and Information requesting a Recognizance (the undertaking) it became apparent that justice would be best served by having the necessity for the undertaking heard before anything else, since, if there was evidence there was no need for an undertaking there would obviously be evidence there had been no assault and, therefore, there could have been no breach of an unnecessary undertaking.

That sounds simple and honest, right? The problem with that scenario of a fast route to justice is that it would allow Mr Murray to prove that:

the neighbour filed a false complaint and lied to the police, along with his wife and son,
the police arrested Mr Murray before concluding a diligent investigation
the police never made an effort to verify whether Mr Murray was even in the vicinity at the time of the alleged incident or if he had an alibi or witness
the Crown Prosecutors failed to follow their process as defined in the Attorney General's policies and accetped a case for prosecution in spite of the lack of evidence against the accused
the judge accepted Informations without satisfying the Court if there was any merit to the charges.

What unfolded in the hearing on 18th July 2012 was obvious teamwork against the defendant (who should not have ever been arrested or charged or prosecuted) between the Judge and the Crown to avoid admitting their negligence, which they did by preventing Mr Murray from any available options to prove the charges were without merit.

Under section 810 a judge is obligated to "hear" the reason argued against the need for an undertaking but she refused to and has not yet scheduled a Show-Cause hearing for Andre to prove there is no necessity and it is in fact a Charter violation to so restrict his liberty without giving him the chance to prove it is an not only unmerited but infringement of his rights and freedoms.

The judge and Crown counsel, Hilary Drain, both spoke over Mr Murray during the hearing and Justice Richards pretty much told him to shut up and leave to collect his disclosure. She lost her composure because she was wrong and being exposed in a courtroom full of observers that justice was taking a back seat because it is "my court room" - that was her response to being asked if her decisions were based in law or were simply her choice.

Every judge has a legislated and ethical duty to facilitate the most just, timely and cost effective resolution to every case before the Court, which is simply not happening in Fredericton Courts.

Mr Murray scored a lot of points at 18th July, not least because at the beginning of the Hearing Mary Jane Richards told him she "expected" he wanted an adjournment and he was not going to get one!!! So I was delighted when, at the end of the hearing, she offered him an adjournment because he had not received disclosure from the Crown on two of the charges, so he obviously needed time to prepare. Objections were made and duly noted by an obviously uncomfortable judge.

Just before the judge told him"you're finished!" in a loud unpleasant manner Andre had asked for a hearing to prove the invalidity of the matters and to prevent the waste of public funds on a prosecution with no merit. Justice Richards was not interested in such a hearing and is, obviously, quite used to the complete waste of public funds that our Provincial Courts apparently are.

The plea hearings are set for 9.30am on 15th August 2012. That will be another very interesting hearing indeed.

Sally Brooks

Court Hearing on bicycle by-law matter (allegedly cycling on the sidewalk)



Regarding:
 Andre Murray's Court Hearing on  bicycle by-law matter (allegedly cycling on the sidewalk) heard before Madame Justice (judge) Mary Jane Richards on Friday 21st September 2012 - I was at the hearing as an observer and when Constable David Beck was being cross examined by Mr Murray; Constable David Beck was not clear about his knowledge of the law regarding Ticket Procedure; Constable David Beck had never heard of a 'Notice of Prosecution', which is required by the New Brunswick Provincial Offences Procedures Act, section 9, onwards, for that purpose the 'Notice of Prosecution' is required to commence Ticket matters in the court.

 Mr Murray was actually arrested without grounds and on Friday 21st September, 2012, Self Represented Defendant Andre Murray has his opportunity to cross examined the arresting Police officer, Constable David Beck , about Constable David Beck's comprehension of 'Powers of Arrest' however, Constable David Beck's knowledge of Ticket procedures was not conversant with the laws giving him powers of arrest and had no knowledge of the legal process for Tickets.

Madame Justice (judge) Mary Jane Richards actually instructed Mr Murray NOT to question Police officer, Constable David Beck on the law, justifying this prohibition as Police officer, Constable David Beck is not a lawyer, Justice (judge) Mary Jane Richards shockinglystated there is no requirement for him to know the law!!!!

 That flies in the face of Staff Sgt Daniel Copp testimony, under oath, earlier this year, when Staff Sgt Daniel Copp stated that the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE have no policies and they train their officers according to actual law and case law - however, despite the fact Staff Sgt Daniel Copp could also not quote any and didn't seem to know or understand it.

Ho hum. Police officer, Constable David Beck also said he was never provided a FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE training manual and seemed to indicate training in the FPF was a little different to other forces. That leaves us with a police force in this Municipality that is an instrument of legislation, empowered to enforce the law but doesn't understand its own powers or the laws it is legislated to enforce ... so lots of people get arrested and charged where there is no actual power to do so. Then the judges say the police are not required to understand the law thereafter, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON lawyer agrees.

Police officer, Constable David Beck has intervened in my own legal issues - but he has been required to follow FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE protocol which is not based in the law and is unconstitutional.

 These officers on the front line should not have to suffer because of poor management and if they are not taught the law re: powers of arrest we need new management and training policies, procedures and protocols - oh yes! That this the Mayor's job with the Chief of Police - no-one else, just those two as theNew Brunswick Police Act requires by legislation. Get moving Mayor Brad Woodside - you are letting down officers like Cst Beck, Stafford, L'oiseau, Roberts - all of them as well as the public and of your Municipality.
Sally Brooks

Thursday, 21 February 2013

Police Staff Sgt. Daniel Copp of Racist FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, New Brunswick, Canada, upsets Sally Brooks, here is her point of view !!!




Bernard Richard has completely contradicted Staff Sgt Daniel Copp's testimony under oath at my hearing on 29th March 2012, (I think you were there) where Copp said the Fredericton City Police have no policies for forced entry or dealing with mentally ill people like me.  He stated under oath that the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE officers were trained in the law itself ... !!!!!!!  And now Bernard Richard says the police are not lawyers trained in the law so they did not need to understand the implications of an unconstitutional piece of legislation!
I am going to order the transcript for you to give as evidence in your claim for compensation - both Mr Richard and the Police are lying and making this up as they go along to knit ass covers for the police.
The police are instruments, and enforcers, of legislation - it is their job to know the law before they violate someone's Charter rights by invading their home and seizing their property without following due diligence.
The charges were invalid, they were dropped and it took the Crown until May to decide that.  The trouble is the police and Crown are too used to violating people's Charter Rights and Freedoms but they are not used to the media coverage and scrutiny that you created.

It is interesting that Cst Frederik L'Oiseau, the "injured party" who filed the s. 301 complaints against Charles, is one of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE officers who was filmed by Charles in the assault of Luc Begin that led to a FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE police officer being criminally charged.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association considered this a conflict of interest, since L'Oiseau was already in a conflict with Charles in this video that lead to him being the subject of a civil legal action by Mr Begin (ongoing), and Mr Richard's review does not consider this.

The FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE claimed there had been no "McNeil" issues (complaints and/or disciplinary matters regarding this officer) when there was at least one Civil action filed against him for negligence.

This is a seriously flawed report by Mr Richard.
Sally brooks,

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

JENN WAMBOLT, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, ENEMY with a disdainful attitude toward the local Legal System.




It is very evident that Jenn Wambolt is an enemy of the Fredericton
Police Department and the Legal System. Note, I don't say Justice
System, because often, that it not what is served up at the
Fredericton Courthouse. If you have ever needed psychiatric care,
especially psychiatric care that is caused by treatment by the FPF,
you may not be handled judicially. This woman is charged with a breach
of probation.

In court, the Crown Attorney, Claude Hache, said there was reasonable
grounds to send her to Campbellton for Psychiatric evaluation but
presented no evident to support that claim. (He could have a degree in
Psychiatry, but this evidence was not submitted to the court.) He
objected to a further adjournment of the case.

The judge, Pierre Dube, agreed with the defendant's lawyer, L.A.
Henry, and said the defendant has a legitimate defence, as she
presently is under the treatment of a psychiatrist. The Crown
continued to make his objections, and the judge cut him off.

The judge ordered a new date be found for the continuation of the
Hearing and after some delay the date of May 30, 2013 was provided by
Court Cst. Estey.

Really would like to say that was it, but as we were leaving the
courtroom (where Sheriff's officers had been positioned on either side
of the doors, in anticipation of an order to take the accused to
Campbellton), Jenn's husband was confronted and told that he had to
pay a $25.00 parking fine or be taken to jail forthwith.

When did parking fines merit a jail term? Isn't Legal Aid provided if
there is a possibility of Jail for a crime? When did a parking ticket
become a criminal offence? This sounds like blackmail and/or revenge.

May I say how happy most of us will be when the new police chief is
chosen? Hopefully, it will be someone from another Province where the
corruption that we see now will be eradicated.

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Self-represented litigants ‘treated with contempt’ by many judges, study finds


Self-represented litigants ‘treated with contempt’ by many judges, study finds 

BY DON BUTLER, OTTAWA CITIZEN  
JANUARY 1, 2013
Jamie Ryan has been representing himself in Family Court in a custody and access dispute with the mother of his young daughter.
Photograph by: Chris Mikula , Ottawa Citizen
OTTAWA — Jamie Ryan has been fighting for equal access to his young daughter since the day she was born nearly three years ago.
When his ex-girlfriend announced she was moving to Toronto and taking their daughter with her, Ryan hired a lawyer and spent $30,000 trying to stop her. The judge ruled against him. “So that was a waste of money, really,” he says.
Since then, Ryan — who owns an Ottawa company called Executive Golf — has been representing himself in court. So far, he’s appeared before seven different judges. Despite some limited success, the experience has been deeply disillusioning.
The judges, he says, treated him like a criminal. “Here I am, trying to be a good father. That’s my whole mission. I enter the court system, and I’m being talked to like a criminal. It’s very insulting and degrading. I’m asking the court for help, and this is the attitude I’m getting.”
Trying to navigate the justice system without a lawyer is the hardest thing he’s ever done, Ryan says. The province’s Family Law Information Centre at the Ottawa courthouse has been of some help, he says, “but they’re supporting a system that’s just so archaic and detailed, and it’s built around criminality. It’s just a vortex of confusion and delays and expenses.”
According to the preliminary results of groundbreaking new research, Ryan’s experiences are typical of lawyerless litigants.
Julie Macfarlane, a law professor at the University of Windsor, has interviewed about 280 self-represented litigants — “self-reps,” for short — in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. It’s one of the first times anyone has ever collected their stories.
“What has surprised me is how traumatized people are by the experiences they’re having, how many lives are getting wrecked, how much anger and frustration there is out there,” says Macfarlane, who plans to publish her findings this spring. “It makes you wonder, given that self-reps are now a majority in the legal system, how much longer the system can hang on.”
The proportion of self-represented litigants varies. But in Family Court, Macfarlane says, it’s always more than 50 per cent, and can rise as high as 80 per cent in some areas. In civil court — Superior Court in Ontario, for example — “I’ve seen anything from 35 to 65 per cent,” she says.
(Macfarlane’s study doesn’t include people who represent themselves in criminal court, where legal aid is available for those who qualify. But they are a growing presence even there.)
According to Macfarlane’s research, Ryan’s rough treatment by judges is the norm for those who appear in court without lawyers. While there are notable exceptions, most judges believe that “if you’re a self-rep, you’re a pain in the ass, you’re going to be really annoying, you’re going to be really unreasonable,” Macfarlane says. “And they get treated with contempt.”
As part of her project, Macfarlane interviewed half a dozen lawyers who represented themselves in court. Even they were shocked at how dismissive judges were. “They couldn’t believe it,” she says. “It has suddenly taken the blinkers off their eyes.
“Even if only 10 per cent of what I’m being told is factually correct,” Macfarlane declares, “it would be really bad. People talk to me, only slightly tongue-in-cheek, about post-traumatic court syndrome.”
The jaundiced judicial attitude is a holdover from an earlier era, when many of those who appeared in court without a lawyer were mentally disturbed, says David Scott, a prominent Ottawa lawyer.
“That’s changed completely,” says Scott. Now, “the unrepresented litigant is frequently smarter than the represented litigant and his lawyer combined. The idea that all these people are deranged is over.”
Within the legal profession, what to do with self-represented litigants “is now the hottest topic on the street,” says Scott. “This is a huge management job for the courts, and we’re just beginning to deal with it.”
For the past 20 years, Macfarlane has trained judges at the National Judicial Institute. “In the last five years, this is what judges want to talk about all the time — how do I deal with self-reps?” she says.
Cost is the main reason people go to court without a lawyer, Macfarlane says. Many start off with a lawyer, spend $5,000 or $10,000 on legal fees, then run out of money.
Many people only chose to represent themselves “in greatest desperation and with huge amounts of anxiety,” Macfarlane says. “But there are also a fairly large number of people who are saying, ‘My lawyer didn’t do much for me.’ Or if they haven’t had a lawyer, ‘Everything seems to be online, surely I can manage this.’”
The vast majority of people Macfarlane interviewed told her the experience was much more stressful, burdensome, difficult and complex than they’d expected. For many, it also took a toll on their health.
“This is the part that has really blown me away,” Macfarlane says. “People consistently describe both physical and mental health issues as a consequence of this” — everything from insomnia and depression to social isolation.
One lawyer — who regularly appears in court on behalf of his clients — was so stressed out after representing himself he had an attack of temporary amnesia, Macfarlane says. Many told her they were “so completely wiped out” after a court appearance that they had to take time off work to recover.
Part of what Macfarlane hopes to do is normalize this type of response so judges won’t dismiss the self-reps they see as nutcases.
“These are not crazy people,” she insists. “We’re talking about normal people who are stressed to the nines, whose lives are falling apart — that’s why they’re in family court — and now they have to deal with all of this.”
Many of the self-represented litigants Macfarlane interviewed have lost faith in the justice system. “People are really angry,” she says.
“What is it exactly we are offering people when we say access to justice? If we continue to use it as a mantra without really delivering on it, and we don’t listen to what people are saying, I don’t know where this is going except down.”
Everyone in the justice system is scrambling to adapt, Macfarlane acknowledges. The most common response is to put more information for self-represented litigants on line. “That’s not necessarily a bad thing,” she says. But people need more than just online information.
“They need face-to-face, morale-boosting support, hand-holding. They need coaching. They also need to have a little bit of time with someone who can say, strategically, ‘Think about what you want to do here. Should you be proposing a settlement?’”
In Canada, the most interesting model is in British Columbia, which has opened four Justice Access Centres — essentially drop-in centres for people without lawyers.
Staff circulate and guide people as they work on their cases at computers. “It sounds like a small thing, but actually, it’s a big difference,” Macfarlane says. “That’s the kind of support that people need.”
Judges must also change, though Macfarlane understands their reaction to the tide of self-reps swamping their courtrooms. “This is not the gig they signed up for,” she says. “They signed up for a gig in which they would have nice, respectful, courteous, arcane legalese conversations with lawyers.”
Judges are appointed almost exclusively based on their knowledge of the law. But they need a completely different set of skills to deal effectively with a docket filled with self-represented litigants, Macfarlane says.
“A lot of what goes on in family courts is not rocket science,” she says. “But it requires someone who’s willing to ask questions, to listen to the answers, to keep control in their courtrooms. It requires all of these other skills that don’t have much to do with knowing about the law.”
For his part, Jamie Ryan plans to go back to court in January to try again to win equal access to his daughter. He already has joint custody, but only 25 per cent access. He has taken an apartment in Toronto to be close to his child, and spends about two-thirds of his time there.
“I’m going to do much better this time around, for sure,” he says confidently, “because I think I can present myself a lot more clearly. I’m still susceptible to the bias of the court system and the details of it, but I think my chances will be a lot better this time.”

Wednesday, 19 December 2012

By-Law tickets treated as criminal offences in New Brunswick

I am shocked to find in the Fredericton Provincial Courts that by-law infractions are being treated as criminal offenses.  Instead of the procedure for bringing an unpaid ticket to the courts I have repeatedly seen that the procedure for a criminal offense is used instead.

So what? You might say.  Well, the big difference is, if you are dragged into court for a by-law ticket by way of an Information (Form 1 under the Provincial Offenses Procedures Act) then you can go to jail for non-payment of 25 cents for a parking ticket.

By-Law infractions are NOT criminal offenses.  If you are issued a ticket by the police or City and do not pay it check out how they begin court process.  Under the Provincial Offenses Procedures Act Ticket procedure is laid out from section 9 - 16.   A Form 1 Information is only for non-ticket infractions and the correct way to bring someone to court for a ticket offense is by a Notice of Prosecution.

I have witnessed the City By-Law enforcement officers hand the Provincial Court Judge a pile of Form 1 Informations and swear to their validity, so the really disturbing aspect of this is that the judges in Fredericton, NB, are knowingly accepting the wrong paperwork for by-law ticket infractions.

This is stealth taxation by the City of Fredericton with the help of the courts.

No-one should be going to jail for a by-law infraction.