THE FACTS
1. On October 15, 1999 the Appellant, parked on the North side of the
un-traveled portion of the 800 block of Humboldt Street located in Victoria
British Columbia. When I returned to my vehicle I noticed that someone had
placed a parking ticket on my windshield. As there was no unlawful accusation
under Common Law on the ticket I disregarded it.
2. Some months later I received a summons in the mail and appeared before Madam
Justice Whelan on May 10, 2000 as per the date indicated in the summons.
3. The commissionaire for the Corporation of Victoria, as an agent under
contract for the City of Victoria, testified that I had
parked 14 minutes [page 2, line 2 of Provincial proceedings] over the
time limit so stated in the Victoria City Bylaw 92 – 84. He submitted
no documents or witnesses in support of his testimony
regarding the time period he alleges.
4. A continuance of the proceedings was requested by me to satisfy the
requirements of service for my Constitutional Challenge to the Victoria City
Bylaw 92-84. Madam Justice Whelan seized the matter, and a date was set for
hearing on June 29, 2000. I entered documents in court, and to all necessary
parties, declaring I was, by consent and as a Freeman,
subject to Common Law only. [Tab ‘1’]
5. On the second appearance of
June 29 no commissionaires were present in the
courtroom, and my case would have failed to proceed due to
a lack of prosecution, save for my willingness to challenge this matter
on Constitutional grounds, in good faith, I therefore plead no contest to the
facts of the case. All of the other cases before Madam Justice Whelan that
afternoon were dismissed for “lack of prosecution”.
Special note: This was the City's first attempt to obstruct justice in this matter. Usually cases are tossed out when the commissionaire does not show, due to "lack of prosecution". However, as I was making this Constitutional Challenge under indigence (meaning I incurred no filing fees) and self represented, I determined to test the law under our so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms, AND our Eternal Magna Carta rights which we have been Imbued with FOR EVER!. I therefore asked to proceed with the Charter issues - and not challenge the substance of the summons - which is the only way one can hope to defeat a ticket.
The court does these minor procedural "freebies" in order to instil in the public the false notion that some form of "due process" is in fact respected. In actual fact, very few tickets of any kind are thrown out due to "mistakes" on the ticket or summons, and one has to make the court aware of any such discrepancies in any event.
6. Madam Justice Whelan informed me that my remedy to her decision that
she stated was "bound by legislation", was to
Appeal, and I informed her of my intent to do so. My Appeal to the BC Supreme
Court was filed with the Victoria Registry on July 14, 2000. The subsequent
Appeal was scheduled for October 11, 2000.
7. On July 14, 2000 I also filed, under the rules of the Supreme Court, a Notice
of Application for court ordered transcripts under the rules for indigency [Tab
‘3’]. The hearing took place July 19, 2000 before Mr. Justice Lowry who so
ordered that the transcripts be provided to all parties.
This means ANY transcripts needed for defence of the Appeal. However I would like to note that I was denied a simple request for Supreme Court transcripts by the BC Court of Appeal, by no less than Madam Justice Ryan. Ryan, you will note, is the very same judge that said that we have no rights (only privileges) and that the Queen has no authority to grant rights (namely the Magna Carta) but legislation only. Needless to say, this "opinion" is very much incoherent and a blatant violation of the law.
8. Nearly three months past without the transcripts being provided. On
October 10,2000 I filed a Notice of Application to the Supreme Court of British
Columbia under V2118357 granting a restraining order against the City of
Victoria. [Tab ‘7’] This was done in light of the unreasonable delay of my court
ordered transcripts; the two threats made by the Corporation of Victoria against
my property on July 20, 2000 [Tab ‘7’- Attachment] which were subsequent to the
filing of the Appeal; and the fact the matter of the bylaw being in force was
now before the courts.
The "unreasonable delay" I refer to, was the Victoria Court Registry's attempt to obstruct my access to the Provincial Court (Traffic) transcripts WHICH WERE ORDERED BY THE COURT, by Justice Lowry as noted in Paragraph 7. (Note: I subsequently found out that I had a fundamental right to the transcripts, as I was charged with a "criminal offence" under the "Offences Act" and no fees are lawful. So they made me go through hoops that were not required, then further failed to administer the order of the judge)
These are the type of things you can expect if you dare try to defend yourself from their assault of your rights. Court registries are filled with lawyers or lawyer wannabees, and will (with few exceptions) do whatever it takes to confuse or obstruct your best efforts to defend your rights. Remember: THESE PEOPLE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE YOU ARE DEFENDING YOURSELF AGAINST.
9.Due to the lengthy delay of the court ordered transcripts solely due to the Victoria Registry, the Appeal was adjourned to May 16, 2001 by consent of both parties. The Appeal took place before Mr. Justice Maczko on the afternoon of May 16, and the Appeal took in excess of two and one half hours. Mr. Justice Maczko requested both parties submit copies of the Bylaw in order to review what he stated in court to be a violation of the Charter concerning the exemptions of select groups and individuals to the Bylaws under which I have been charged. Submission was filed by Appellant May 18,2001. [Tab ‘13]
This is a very important fact. Mr. Justice Maczko stated in open court that I had DEFINITELY shown him a violation of no less than s. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only reason he did not render a decision in my favour at that very moment was that a full copy of the Victoria Bylaw had not been provided by Crown (interestingly enough) and the copy I had provided the Victoria Registry had "mysteriously" gone missing. (Yet another example of the attempts to obstruct justice, and not the only document to go "mysteriously" missing.)
Supplemental info, including a copy (from me only, not
the crown) of the Victoria City Traffic Bylaw was provided to the court in short
order.
10. I received notice of Mr. Justice Maczko’s reasons for judgment by mail, via
the crown representative, on or about July 15, 2001 [Tab ‘14’].
So I receive in the mail a letter FROM THE CROWN LAWYER informing me of the judges "reasons for judgement" and NOWHERE in his judgement does he refer to the violations he had been so interested in when he requested the copy of the bylaw. I'll let you speculate as to how a clear violation of the law becomes something not even worth mentioning in the space of just over a month. [Hint: the province would have lost access to hundreds of millions in revenue if the court had ruled in my favour]
11 Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal was filed by the Appellant via
mail, and that notice was forwarded to the Respondent, the City of Victoria, and
the Attorney General as indicated by the letter from Respondent dated July 25,
2001. [Tab ‘9’]
12. There were/are no damaged parties, or private
complainants, relating to my parking contrary to their arbitrary bylaw
92-84 restrictions.
13. I am not bound under contract of duty
as a
“driver” [Tab ‘ 8’].
14. I am a non-profit traveler
and user of the
Highways under Common Law.
15 Application made February 25, 2002, under rules of Indigency, for Supreme
Court of British Columbia transcript [Tab ‘12’]. Madam Justice Ryan reserved
judgment, pending need of BC Court of Appeal to view document if transcript
testimony becomes a relevant or contentious issue.
NOTE: The Crown, in their "Respondent Reply to
Appellant Factum" did not challenge ANY of the facts listed above.
According to the BC Court of Appeal, you are mere property (Artificial person) of government... you have no rights.... only "government approved" privileges.