Comment

Comment by Edward Teach on August 23, 2010 at 2:14pm

This letter was sent today around 10:15 am the events from August 13 2010 and July 23, 2010 will be up on this page shortly but some back ground it is called the Howland directive and it was made in 1989 by then Chief Justice of Ontario Howland here is what it says.

Howland Directive:

"Subject to any order made by the presiding judge as to non-publication of court proceedings, and to the right of the presiding judge to give such directions from time to time as he or she may see fit as to the manner in which an audio recording may be made at a court hearing pursuant to section 146 [now section 136] of the Courts of Justice Act the unobtrusive use of a recording device from the body of the courtroom by a solicitor, a party acting in person, or a journalist for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing hand written notes may be considered as being approved without an oral or written application to the presiding judge"

and here is what the ministry of the Attorney General says it is working towards.

Recommendation #2: Use of Tape Recorders

•The restriction on the use of tape recorders in court is codified in the Courts of Justice Act and would require a legislative amendment to remove the restriction. The McGuinty government will consult with the judiciary and is committed to introducing such an amendment

•The ministry is conducting a policy review and analysis, and developing options in consultation with the Chief Justices for potential amendments to the Courts of Justice Act to permit the unobtrusive use of tape recorders by lawyers, parties representing themselves and journalists at a court hearing without prior approval of the judge

•In the interim, the ministry is consulting with the judiciary on new signage for all courthouses across Ontario that would more accurately reflect the 1989 Howland Practice Direction, which can permit such use without prior approval of the presiding judge.

Here is the link to that press release:
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/news/2007/20070524...

Draw your own conclusions there folks failure to follow rule of law by Hamilton's courts begs the question why?
Why intimidate threaten and break the law to ensure the defendant has a proceeding that can in no way be considered fair?
Why hasn't the Crown Attorney who after all is supposed to have the Ontario citizens best interests always on their agenda chosen to do nothing when a Justice of the Peace blatantly broke rule of law as well as Jurisprudence. ( higher courts rulings must be followed by lower courts)
Has the Attorney General decided to employ and appoint Justices of the Peace who are incompetent and or uneducated in the law?

Again I put forth the question has Ontario and or Hamilton had a referendum and separated from the rest of Canada and its Constitution Act of 1982?

Has the Assistant crown Attorney Kathy Malkovich chosen to ignore what is the best interest for the citizens of Ontario? Is she a willing participant in Obstructing justice or has she already filed her complaint letter with the Justice of the Peace Review Council?

Another Lawyer named Asgar Manek was present on August 13, 2010 was present for the proceeding he is a defence lawyer I wonder if he has filed his complaint with the council as well? After all he is a defence lawyer and probably would not want his clients to have an unfair trial would he?

Well citizens draw your own conclusions and make your own decisions and if you care about How Hamilton Courts pay lip service to rule of law and then act in contradiction to rule of law come on down to court room 100 at 45 main street east the Sopinka Court house on September 3 2010 from 9:00 am to about 12:00 ( noon)

Special constables making threats against citizens who have legitimate business before the courts in an attempt to obstruct justice, Justices of the Peace having the special constables who work in her court high-jack a persons legal documents, and crown attorney who serve the citizen's of Ontario sitting idly by and participating in it yah the Hamilton courts are defiantly doing their level best to prevent my case from being heard as it should and outlined in The Canada Constitution Act of 1982

Oh and the reason this case has not made it out of the preliminary stages is the crown is refusing full disclosure as I still have not received the report by the officer who received an anonymous tip about me. nor have I received constable Doel's report on his involvement in this case.
You all remember constable Doel don't we you know that shining example of ethical and moral police practice. like having porn on his police computer sex while on duty ,, and obstructing justice. and in case you missed the evidence of his involvement in my matter here it is repeated for you who are paying attention.

David Doel

*
cid:0
David Doel
DDoel@hamiltonpolice.on.ca
*

* Send e-mail
* Find e-mail

To dan_perrins_@hotmail.com, Nadia Urciuoli
From: David Doel (DDoel@hamiltonpolice.on.ca)
Sent: July 27, 2009 10:09:32 AM
To: dan_perrins_@hotmail.com
Cc: Nadia Urciuoli (NUrciuoli@hamiltonpolice.on.ca)
Mr Perrins:

I am in receipt of your e-mail sent to Andrea Horwath, MPP, David Christopherson, MP, Bernie Morrelli, etc. on July 21st, 2009. I have reviewed the information provided in your email and checked our records with respect to the incidents described.

Although I understand your concerns with respect to the loss of correspondence relating to your Ontario Human Rights Commission investigation it appears the officers who you dealt with handled the matter correctly.

If you are not satisfied with the service you were provided by the Hamilton Police Service you can make a complaint at any police station or with our Professional Standards Branch who can be contacted at 905-546-4776.

If you require additional information, I will be pleased to assist as required.

Sincerely;


David Doel B.A.,MSc.
Inspector
Quality Assurance
Phone 905-540-6240
email: ddoel@hamiltonpolice.on.ca

yah the officers handled that one correctly alright ignored rule of law and the practice direction on domestic abuse course its not like letters from the Ontario Human Rights Commission should be given any importance after all it is only an Ontario Government institution. It was only government correspondence. Even Worse he down plays it as a loss and not as it should have been called a theft.