Fix Our World
To Unite All People On a World Scale - Peace Environment Health Empowerment
Dear Mr Teach,
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
Re: Letter from Dalton McGuinty
As someone who does not support Dalton McGuinty in any way, shape or form I find his response to your inquirey completely unbiased. Government officials should not under any circumstances respond to appeals already rejected under a court of law.
To do so undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Enforcement, Section 24 subsection 2. Since elected officials are not lawyers and are not entitled to arbitrarily change court decisions, he would not be in a position to even try and even if he'd decided to and somehow the case was won, this violation alone is grounds for appeal which means, you lose again, with the added cost of additional court fees.
Re: Letter with respect to Events listed:
Having reviewed all of the court evidence provided and filed at CanLII, I fail to see the basis of your argument that your rights were somehow compromised.
If the Human Rights Tribunal had mailed you your Request for Reconsideration Form TR-8 regular mail without your express consent, then you might've been able to sue them for a a violation of civil proceedure. However, according to the letter you posted as "event150a", you in fact gave them consent without confirming your address to them via a phone call.
Where under oath they stated themselves this was the last known address, had you not given them consent via a phone call, you might've had grounds for a lawsuit.
Rules of Civil Proceedure 16.03 subsection 4 states: Re:
Mail via Last known address
" Service of a document may be made by sending a copy of the document together with an acknowledgment of receipt card (Form 16A) by mail to the last known address of the person to be served, but service by mail under this subrule is only effective as of the date the sender receives the card. O. Reg. 24/00, s. 3."
Pursuant to 16.03(4), 16.06(1) states:
"16.06 (1) Where a document is to be served by mail under these rules, a copy of the document shall be served by regular lettermail or by registered mail. O. Reg. 535/92, s. 6 (1)."
Pursuant to 16.06 (1) Where a document does not reach person served: 16.07(b) states:
16.07 Even though a person has been served with a document in accordance with these rules, the person may show on a motion to set aside the consequences of default, for an extension of time or in support of a request for an adjournment, that the document, (b) came to the person’s notice only at some time later than when it was served or is deemed to have been served. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.07.
I believe the reason that "the system" ultimately failed for you is due to a technicality. Your giving them consent to mail you legal forms regular mail without verifying an address you'd be able to receive it from before hand removed all liability from the human rights tribunal should you not get the letter.
Your appeal was rejected because you failed to respond to a letter mailed to you allegedly on your own terms. If you can prove that you never agreed to have it mailed to you via regular mail then you might have grounds for appeal, but I believe the onus is on you to provide them the correct address prior to mailing documents to you. If they have to mail by your last known address because you did not provide it then that's not their fault.
I came to this website thinking it had something to do with the statement "Premier Dalton McGuinty, Christ Bentley, Hugh Brown, Hamilton Courts, the Crown Attorney, Mayor Eisenberger, the City Councillors as well as the City Police all support spousal abuse 48% of the time."
Statistics are like tarot cards. They're fun to play with to get a vague idea of what's going on, but the day tarot cards establish public policy is the day you can kiss your rights and freedoms goodbye.
After reviewing your case, I believe you need help and applaud that you're reaching out.
I'll bookmark this page and respond as I can and I really hope you do get help.
Because your situation was not laid out very clearly(abuses), I understand why and I don't advocate abuse(any kind), I'm responding with what little I can offer. I hope that you do not take offense. You seem genuine in your passion, if not a bit misguided and that is something that should be applauded.
Looking forward to correspondence,
Demojen
Re: Letter from Dalton McGuinty
As someone who does not support Dalton McGuinty in any way, shape or form I find his response to your inquirey completely unbiased. Government officials should not under any circumstances respond to appeals already rejected under a court of law.
To do so undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Enforcement, Section 24 subsection 2. Since elected officials are not lawyers and are not entitled to arbitrarily change court decisions, he would not be in a position to even try and even if he'd decided to and somehow the case was won, this violation alone is grounds for appeal which means, you lose again, with the added cost of additional court fees.
Re: Letter with respect to Events listed:
Having reviewed all of the court evidence provided and filed at CanLII, I fail to see the basis of your argument that your rights were somehow compromised.
If the Human Rights Tribunal had mailed you your Request for Reconsideration Form TR-8 regular mail without your express consent, then you might've been able to sue them for a a violation of civil proceedure. However, according to the letter you posted as "event150a", you in fact gave them consent without confirming your address to them via a phone call.
Where under oath they stated themselves this was the last known address, had you not given them consent via a phone call, you might've had grounds for a lawsuit.
Rules of Civil Proceedure 16.03 subsection 4 states: Re:
Mail via Last known address
" Service of a document may be made by sending a copy of the document together with an acknowledgment of receipt card (Form 16A) by mail to the last known address of the person to be served, but service by mail under this subrule is only effective as of the date the sender receives the card. O. Reg. 24/00, s. 3."
Pursuant to 16.03(4), 16.06(1) states:
"16.06 (1) Where a document is to be served by mail under these rules, a copy of the document shall be served by regular lettermail or by registered mail. O. Reg. 535/92, s. 6 (1)."
Pursuant to 16.06 (1) Where a document does not reach person served: 16.07(b) states:
16.07 Even though a person has been served with a document in accordance with these rules, the person may show on a motion to set aside the consequences of default, for an extension of time or in support of a request for an adjournment, that the document, (b) came to the person’s notice only at some time later than when it was served or is deemed to have been served. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.07.
I believe the reason that "the system" ultimately failed for you is due to a technicality. Your giving them consent to mail you legal forms regular mail without verifying an address you'd be able to receive it from before hand removed all liability from the human rights tribunal should you not get the letter.
Your appeal was rejected because you failed to respond to a letter mailed to you allegedly on your own terms. If you can prove that you never agreed to have it mailed to you via regular mail then you might have grounds for appeal, but I believe the onus is on you to provide them the correct address prior to mailing documents to you. If they have to mail by your last known address because you did not provide it then that's not their fault.
I came to this website thinking it had something to do with the statement "Premier Dalton McGuinty, Christ Bentley, Hugh Brown, Hamilton Courts, the Crown Attorney, Mayor Eisenberger, the City Councillors as well as the City Police all support spousal abuse 48% of the time."
Statistics are like tarot cards. They're fun to play with to get a vague idea of what's going on, but the day tarot cards establish public policy is the day you can kiss your rights and freedoms goodbye.
After reviewing your case, I believe you need help and applaud that you're reaching out.
I'll bookmark this page and respond as I can and I really hope you do get help.
Because your situation was not laid out very clearly(abuses), I understand why and I don't advocate abuse(any kind), I'm responding with what little I can offer. I hope that you do not take offense. You seem genuine in your passion, if not a bit misguided and that is something that should be applauded.
Looking forward to correspondence,
Demojen
Views: 26
Comment
-
Comment by Edward Teach on December 2, 2009 at 4:02am
-
A further thought there Demojen,
If you really did read the events then I ask the Question
Why are you calling Mr. Teach and not by given name? Also you must have missed quite a bit for if you did read it I mention that the offences took places in 2008 and I put forth my application for reconsideration on Oct. 30 2009. kinda seems like you only want to focus on one little area but of course you do not support Dalton do you?
I invite you to disprove me the forum is open for discussion or would you like to go to facebook or myspace to debate the facts?
-
-
Demojen,
I respect your views however point 150a is way after the fact that my Ex comitted an offense specificaly section 345(mail search and theft) of the criminal code by the way Demojen an indictable offense murder etc are also indictable. These crimes were commited back in Nov and Dec of 2008. This is what my complaint is aboout, the Hamilton Police did not press the charge against her nor did the His Worship Hugh Brown. In fact Worship Brown acted the exact opposite of every rule of procedure that is currently consolidated, this is obstruction of justice as defined in Bill C-46. That is where the discrimination lies,, when the police have oral testimony (which by the way is all it takes for a woman to have a man charged) should not oral testimony have the same weight when it comes from a man? That is discrimination on the basis of sex is it not? As for Dalton I did not ask him to over turn a judgement but to ask for an inquiry as to why 48% of abuse victims are being neglected by the Dalton's own appointed officials? Kinda like the OLG scam and the E-Health fiasco both had inquires as to how the system failed. Well as for the statistics I can only use the same stats as the government. If you would re-read then perhaps your misunderstanding of where the discrimination lies would be realized. My appeal was reject because of the letters (that were the objects of the crime executed by my Ex) were not responded to because...THEY WERE STOLEN. After the time deadline had passed the decsion was rendered that I had intentionally disregarded said deadlines in 2008 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It is from that decsion that the respondents have relied upon and the tribunal has decided to honour.
What I am really curious about is how you got canlii to up the decsions in my case/ appeals as I would love to put that information up here and on other website.
Are the Police now Judge and Jury? Also on August !8 2009 Worship Brown was there as a trier of law and not of fact. The trier of fact would have been the Judge who would have had my Ex pleading her defense to and or accepting a plea bargain.
I look forward to your reply
Blog Posts
Badge
© 2024 Created by FixOurWorld.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Fix Our World to add comments!
Join Fix Our World