August 13, 2010 ,, have a look at the administration of Justice here in Hamilton

Ok before reading realize that this is an official court record ,, scan would not copy signature ,, pay close attention to page 5 lines 5 - 20 where I ask to have access to my court papers twice which shows Hamilton Police Were Holding them hostage and forcing me to make a legal argument from memory ,, ahh just a little breaking of the law by the boys huh

File No. 10-2072

on August 13, 2010 at HAMILTON, ONTARIO
K. Malkovich Counsel for the Provincial Crown
D. Perrins In Person
AS 0087 (rev. 07-01)
Table of Contents
* * * * * * * * * *
Proceedings on Set Date Page 1
Transcript Ordered: August 23, 2010 Transcript Completed: September 2, 2010 Ordering Party Notified: September 2, 2010
AG 0087 (rev. 07-01)
R. V. Perrins
DAY, AUGUST 13, 2010
CROWN: Daniel Perrins?
THE COURT: Come up here so I can here you. MARIA PERRINS: Daniel Perrins is my son. THE COURT: What is your name?
MARIA PERRINS: Maria Perrins.
THE COURT: All right.
MARIA PERRINS: And he is in the courthouse in the entrance and they will deny him entrance into here because he has a tape recorder and he says, he has explained to the officer Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act as well as Chief Justice of Ontario, W.G.C. Howland's ruling and practice direction in which it is say a party acting in person or a journalist-for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes, may be considered as being approved without an oral or written application to the presiding judge. This is what Mr. Perrins believes is an obstruction of justice, failure to follow rule of law set out in the Courts of Justice Act, can be construed no other way. MS. MALKOVICH: Your Worship I can advise Mr. Perrins is not in the courtroom. On the last occasion I was in court, Justice of the Peace Devellano was presiding. When Mr. Perrins approached the court, he took out a tape recorder and placed it on the table. Justice of the Peace Devellano immediately instructed him to turn it off, it would not be recorded, it was not appropriate. He made similar submissions, albeit a little shorter at that time and she ordered him to turn it off.

R. V. Perrins
THE COURT: And appropriately so.
MARIA PERRINS: He can't afford a lawyer and he's trying to defend himself.
THE COURT: Well, he can apply for legal aid. Has he applied for legal aid?
MARIA PERRINS: I don't know what he's done.
MS. MALKGVICH: I believe I can - we should get Mr. Perrins to come in the courtroom, he's, you know. I don't like to make submissions in the absence of Mr. Perrins, I believe he has applied for legal aid. He has indicated he has Charter motions that he wishes to bring but he's having a hard time getting, finding a lawyer who will bring those Charter applications on his behalf. He previously has Mr. Chrolovicius and I understand that he discharged Mr. Chrolovicius.
THE COURT: All right, but at the beginning of your statement you said he was denied access into the court?
MARIA PERRINS: Mr. Perrins is in the courthouse entrance and is being denied access to the Courtroom 100. Mr. Perrins has explained to the officers what I said.
THE COURT: And when was that? When did that happen?
MARIA PERRINS: This morning.
THE COURT: This morning?
THE COURT: And is that true Madam Crown, he's not being allowed in the building?
R. V. Perrins
MS. MALKOVICH: I don't know, I just, Officer Nokes has just gone out to see if he will come in to the courtroom without the recording device.
THE COURT: That's why he's being denied access, he's got a recording device.
MR. MANEK: I was once before and we had problems. MS. MALKOVICH: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, all right, that's totally inappropriate.
MR. MANEK: He's very difficult to deal with. I was here last time.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. MALKOVICH: I have knowledge of this particular case Your Worship.
THE COURT: Yes, thank you. All right, Ms. Perrins thank you for that information. We'll hold the matter down to see whether he comes .in. MR. MANEK: So what do we do with this?
MS. MALKOVICH: Well, Officer Nokes is out speaking to him.
MR. MANEK: Oh, is he? Do you want me to go and see it there's..
MS. MALKOVICH: I don't know, the Crown's position would be that perhaps Mr. Perrin's mother could hold onto his belongings, if he doesn't want... THE COURT: Yes, absolutely.
MS. MALKOVICH: ...and he can came in and speak to his matter in court.
MR. MANEK: I'll go and suggest that it is
possible, but that's going to be a difficult time. THE COURT: All right, have a seat Ms. Perrins. Have a seat. All right.
R. V. Perrins
MR. MANEK: Yeah, he'll be coming in. There's been a struggle but he's still coming. Yeah, he's coming in now.
OFFICER NOKES: Your Worship, for liability reasons, I have the recorder, he didn't leave it at the front, but he doesn't have it.
THE COURT: All right, thank you very much. OFFICER NOKES: He just asked if he could have his books of notes.
THE COURT: Well, he can have them certainly. Is he entering the courtroom at some point?
OFFICER NOKES: That's the gentleman there.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Perrins, please come forward sir. All right sir, what is it you wish to do today?
DANIEL PERRINS: Well, I've been orderedlpy Madam Worship, I can't remember her name from last time I was here to appear here today.
DANIEL PERRINS: I've having some problems with the rule of law, specifically 136 of the Courts of Justice Act...
THE COURT: Mm-hmm.
DANIEL PERRINS: ...which allows me as a self representative litigant the right to record the proceedings to supplement my notes, which is my issue today, I guess. Chief Justice Howland said that in 1989 in his practice direction that there,
R. V. Perrins
I believe, if I could see, verbatim give you that...
THE COURT: All right, sir, I can you tell you 1989 was some time ago, and I'm sure, I know for a fact the practice directions have been changed numerous times.
DANIEL PERRINS: Well, in 2005 Michael Bryant, former Attorney General Michael Bryant...
DANIEL PERRINS: ...said that the courts are to be more open and more, Your Worship, I do really need my notes.
THE COURT: Well, sir, I'm specifically going to agree with Her Worship Devellano that you cannot have recording devices in this courtroom. It is not allowed, sir.
DANIEL PERRINS: Your Worship, if I could please have my notes. .
THE COURT: I'm not prepared to argue it sir. DANIEL PERRINS: So you're prepared to put a written ruling here today?
THE COURT: I'm prepared for you to put this matter over until you can figure out what you're going to do and how you're going to deal with it.
THE COURT: Have you made application for legal aid? DANIEL PERRINS: Your Worship, I have chosen to represent myself.
THE COURT: All right, thank you. And what would you like to do? When would you like to come back on this matter to set a date?
R. V. Perrins
DANIEL PERRINS: Well, depends what the Crown has to say today, I believe.
MS. MALKOVICH: The Crown's prepared to set a trial date Your Worship. On the last occasion - I can indicate Your Worship there was a request for further disclosure. I believe it was on June the 25th• Mr. Perrins has indicated there was some further disclosure that he wished to request. At that time, we were in front of Justice of the Peace Baker, I indicated in this jurisdiction the best way to do that, to request further disclosure in addition to the original package is to do a letter in writing. Mr. Perrins did that and provided it to me.
MS. MALKOVICH: It was a lengthy letter, I did respond to it on the last occasion. I have some further disclosure to give him, there are some officer's notes from another occurrence which have come in, so I can provide that to him today as further disclosure. But as far as the Crown is concerned, disclosure is now complete...
MS. MALKOVICH: the best of my knowledge and I wrote Mr. Perrins a letter with some attached documents and further disclosure, that was provided to him on the last occasion. These are some notes that have come in that I told him I would request. But the Crown is prepared to set a trial date, absent further requests from Mr. Perrins for disclosure or other issues, that he may need in order to be ready to go to trial.
R. v. Perrins
THE COURT: All right, so the Crown's indicated you have full disclosure now, sir. Would you like to set your trial date today?
DANIEL PERRINS: Your Worship, I do have an issue with what the Crown alleges is full disclosure here. The Crown has arbitrarily decided on what they will disclose and will not. They say that some matters are corollary, but I do believe that is not the Crown's, the Crown does not have the right to arbitrarily decide and that should be a tryor of facts decision.
THE COURT: If you have specific things that you need in terms of disclosure you have to request them in writing sir.
DANIEL PERRINS: I do so Your Worship.
THE COURT: If you have requested, and she's indicated she's provided ,everything that you've requested in terms of what she has.
DANIEL PERRINS: Your Worship, in, I have the copy of the letter there in which the Crown Attorney, Madam Crown...
THE COURT: Okay, you know what sir, I'm not going to deal: with this. I think if you're not prepared to set a trial date, this matter has been ongoing, your first appearance after release was February
the 25th or 26th, 2010, it's been put over on numerous occasions. You've received full disclosure, according to what the Crown has available to provide you. If you're not prepared to set a trial date, I'm going to suggest you go and speak to a judge.
R. v. Perrins
MR. MANEK: Your Worship, if I may assist as an officer of the court, if Mr. Perrins believes that there is some disclosure that he should be getting, he's not getting and if the Crown doesn't give it, he has the right to apply to the judge for an order to provide the disclosure and if they don't provide it, he can always apply for a stay of the case because he's not been disclosed, that's one thing. The other thing regarding recording, if Mr. Perrins is concerned, he should knot that everything that's being said is recorded, he can always order the transcript for paying charge, and he can get everything that's recorded.
DANIEL PERRINS: But that does add a monetary burden that I must carry in order to get these transcripts when I can just as easily record them myself as a journalist or as a self-litigant. THE COURT: Well, sir...
DANIEL PERRINS: ...which is one 136 of the Courts of Justice Act.
THE COURT: . .yes, Ms. Malkovich.
MS. MALpVICH: Just in relation to the issue of disclosure Your Worship, I indicated in my letter on July the 20th to Mr. Perrins, in his letter, his letter to me requesting disclosure was approximately eight pages long, half of it was case law that he was relying on but many of his requests were requests for items that would qualify as third party records, they're in possession of other ministries, they are in the possession of other agencies and the Crown, I think, what Mr. Perrins
R. v. Perrins
needs to understand is that yes, the Crown is a government ministry but I don't have access to these documents, so on the first case, or on the first basis, I cannot disclose them to them because they are third party records. I don't have possession or control of them. Secondly, Mr. Perrins has disclosed what he intends ultimately to be his defense and he can ultimately rally these documents in his defense but as far as the Crown is concerned, the Crown is only required to disclose anything that is relevant to the charges before the court and anything the Crown will be relying on or that would potentially arise in the Crown's case. And that, in my respectful submission, has been accorded with. I indicated to him, he had requested numerous transcripts of different court proceedings and I've told him that the Crown is not going to be ordering those transcripts, that he can order them if he wishes to do so and I told him where he can go to do that. He requested some hospital records for himself. I indicated again the Crown does not intend to rely on those but if he wishes to raise them in his defense he can go and get the records himself. And that is basically the content of the letter, just I'd made a note of it, third party records and also prior occurrence reports where he was concerned about blacked out information which of course is personal information of individuals or people who can't be disclosed to the accused. It appears..
MR. MANEK: Your Worship, for the benefit of Mr. Perrins, he can apply under s.276 or s.278 of the
R. v. Perrins
Criminal Code to apply for those third party records and the see what the judge says.
MS. MALKOVICH: He could make application under s.278 if he wishes to do so.
THE COURT: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
DANIEL PERRINS: Your Worship, I do realize that perhaps the Crown does not have the authority or the ability to obtain or gather my medical records, but I do notice that they have been very easily been able to obtain officers, constables, police records and I'm just wondering why the Crown hasn't disclosed Detective Sergeant David Doles (ph) or I believe he's a detective sergeant, or Sergeant David Doles information on this situation. MS. MALKOVICH: David Dole has nothing to do with this case as far as the Crown can see.
MS. MALKOVICH: For the charges that are before the court and the allegations as far as I can see in looking through the Crown brief, I believe he's actually an inspector, but...
DANIEL PERRINS: An inspector.
MS. MALKOVICH: . .he's not named anywhere in the disclosure. I don't know what Inspector Dole would have to do with this case. I see no relevance at all to the charges before the court.
DANIEL PERRINS: If the court would like, Your Worship, I could produce that document and the email from Detective, or Inspector Dole and his involvement in this case.
THE COURT: All right sir, the Crown has indicated to the court that she has provided to you every
R. v. Perrins
piece of documentation she has in terms of disclosure that the Crown is relying on or that is relevant to the case.
DANIEL PERRINS: Your Worship...
THE COURT: I take the Crown at her word that she's done that sir. There is no further disclosure available. Officer Doles information is not relevant to the case as she's indicated and so that's completed sir. There's nothing else that she can provide to you.
DANIEL PERRINS: Your Worship...
THE COURT: Do you want....
DANIEL PERRINS: it not the tryor of facts? THE COURT: I'm not the tryor of facts sir. DANIEL PERRINS: No, no, no, Your Worship, if I could just have a moment to propose my question. Is it not the tryor of facts decision on what is relevant to the case or not and is the Crown, by denying me access to the Detective Doles or Inspector Doles notes on this situation or on this matter is that not in fact the Crown taking over the job for the judiciary?
THE COURT: The Crown has indicated that Officer Doles has nothing to do with this, so likely she has no information from him.
MS. MALKOVICH: For the record, this offense date, alleged offense date, is February of 2010 and I don't believe Inspector Dole was even, I believe he wasn't working for the police at that time. I don't want to get into the...
R. V. Perrins
DANIEL PERRINS: Madam Worship, as a matter of fact, the Crown is right, but this matter has been going since January of 2009.
THE COURT: All right, sir..
DANIEL PERRINS: I made complaints about the defense, or about the alleged victim and these are all on record with the police, the police chose to do nothing about it.
THE COURT: All right, sir, I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to discuss this any further with you. The Crown's indicated you have everything that she has that she's relying on or that's relevant to this information. If you wish to pursue this further you'll need to go before a judge and speak with the judge. Would you like to do that sir.
DANIEL PERRINS: I would like some time to digest the further disclosure that has been given to me as of today.
THE COURT: All right, sir, I'm going to ask you to come back then in two weeks time, that's August the L/
eN"ui, 2010, Courtroom 100 at 9:00a.m., it is marked to set a date, it's going to be marked pre-emptory to set that date. You can't keep putting it over sir, and if you're not prepared to set a date and you wish to further argue with respect to disclosure, you'll have to go before a judge. DANIEL PERRINS: Thank you, Your Worship. I'd like to ask one last thing. Your Worship, are you going to be the Justice of the Peace on that day? THE COURT: 1 don't know sir.
R. v. Perrins
DANIEL PERRINS: Okay, it is my intention to make forth an application for my right to record these proceedings...
THE COURT: And you can do that sir and then you'll go before a judge to do that.
DANIEL PERRINS: . .there's numerous things that we have discussed here - I will, I will indeed Your Worship, I was just....
MR. MANEK: I urge Mr. Perrins to really look at those two sections and he'll get his answers,
s.276, s.278 of the Criminal Code gives him all the powers he needs to get whatever he wants from the Crown. If the Crown doesn't give, the judge can order but he's got to satisfy it's relevant or not. That's your answer, 276, 278 of the Criminal Code. THE COURT: Section 276 and 278, check it out sir and come back in two weeks time and it'll be marked to set a date.
MR. MANEK: He has to look at only S. 278, the nature of the charges indicates.
MR. MANEK: Section 278.
THE COURT: Thank you sir.
DANIEL PERRINS: Thank you, Your Worship have a good weekend. Your Worship, I'm so sorry, I forgot about my surety's previous commitments, she cannot be here for the 27th.
THE COURT: Can I see the information again, please.
DANIEL PERRINS: So, sorry Your Worship.
THE COURT: Hold on, just a moment. All right, thank you. Yes, what date is she available then?
R. V. Perrins
He's not to be out of his residence unless with his surety.
MS. MALKOVICH: September 3?
DANIEL PERRINS: The following week Your Worship please?
THE COURT: September 3'i is that agreeable. September 3rd, 2010, Courtroom 100, it's marked to set a date, it is pre-emptory to set the date.
Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)
I, Cynthia Ambrosino certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. V. Perrins held in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at 45 Main Street East, Hamilton, Ontario and taken from
Recording No. 4711 Courtroom 100-648-2010 which has been certified in Form I.


Views: 168


You need to be a member of Fix Our World to add comments!

Join Fix Our World

Comment by Edward Teach on October 30, 2010 at 8:02pm
see on October 8, 2010 It was affirmed that Section 136.2 of the Courts of Justice act is still current consolidated Law and further more that what is known as the Howland Directive or Practice Direction is still a policy that is in effect ,, so why would the Crown attorney Ms Malkovich not advise the Presiding Justice of the Peace about the Rule of Law and or that current consolidated law gives us all the right to record proceedings so as to permit the supplementing of the days notes unless of course the Crown wished for us the general population / citizens to have an unfair proceeding ,, also why would Asgar Manek who was acting as Amicie Curare (sp) or friend of the court not also advise HER WORSHIP, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE L. ROSS that it was in fact current consolidated law ,, and why would we as citizens of Hamilton want a Justice of The Peace who is either ignorant of current consolidated law or intentionally acts in violation of current consolidated law to Preside over our proceedings??? ,, Guess it is Justice for some and rule of law for some and for those who can't afford a good lawyer the rule of law is applied on a as the crown needs basis with the blessing of some who preside over us. will keep on exposing them and all you the good public have to do is start calling your local politician and asking " what the hell is going on down the at the Sopinka Court House where current consolidated law is supposed to be adhered to and administered as current consolidated law says it should

© 2020   Created by FixOurWorld.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service