This is one of three (3) official complaint letters sent to The Justices Of The Peace Review Council. There was three of them all of them complaining about different Justices of the Peace involved in this matter but for simplicity sake will only post one. They all said the same thing after all it was the same crime of obstruction of justice that Their Worships engaged in just on 3 different occasions.

Documents or official court transcripts can be found at this link:

https://fixourworld.ning.com/profiles/blogs/august-13-2010-have-a-l...


November 3, 20 10 Dan Perrins
XX XXXXXXX XXXXXX Dundas Ontario
XXX - XXX
Tel: (905) XXX - XXXX
Justice of the Peace Review Council Ontario Court Of Justice
Ministry Of Attorney General
P.O Box 914
Adelaide Street Postal Station
31 Adelaide St. F.
Toronto, Ontario M5C 2K3
Fax: 416-327-2339
Dear Sirs/Madames
RE: Judicial Complaint - obstruction of justice by Her Worship Justice Of The Peace L. Ross of
the Ontario Court of Justice, 45 Main Street East, Hamilton, Ontario.
I would like to file a formal judicial complaint against Her Worship L. Ross of the Ontario Provincial Court at 45 Main street East in Hamilton, Ontario. The grounds for my complaint are:
1) That Her Worship L. Ross failed to uphold the law and protect my rights in her court, specifically those granted under Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act which gives persons the right to audio record their own personal court hearing.
2) That by refusing to allow me exercise my rights under the Law, Her Worship L. Ross has obstructed justice and has violated her sworn oath and duty as justice of the peace.
3) That by showing such a blatant lack of knowledge and respect of the application of section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act, Her Worship L. Ross has brought the administration of Justice into disrepute.
On August 13, of 2010 I was a party appearing before Her Worship L. Ross in the Ontario Court of Justice at
45 Main Street East, Hamilton Ontario. In the court, I indicated to Her Worship L. Ross that I wished to exercise
my right to unobtrusively record my own court hearing for the purposes of supplementing my notes. I had a small hand-held audio recorder which I wanted to simply place in view of the court so that after the court, I could review what was said so that I could be in the best position to continue on
with my case and to defend my rights. Unfortunately, Her Worship L. Ross refused to allow me to record the hearing as permitted under Section 136 of the Courts of JusticeAct.
It seems quite clear from the wording of section 136 from the Courts of Justice Act that the legislators intended to protect the rights of citizens to audiotape their own court hearings for the purposes of helping them.
I cannot imagine how Her Worship L. Ross could interpret this section of the
Courts of Justice Act in any other way except as a tool to assist those appearing before the court. While court transcripts can be ordered, it certainly does not seem fair to force me to purchase official court transcripts at great expense when I can simply obtain the same information with my own recording device and in addition not have to wait to get them. It sometimes takes days or sometimes weeks to get court transcripts so why should so much time and court resources be tied up for the purposes of allowing a person to more closely review what went on in a particular court hearing.
What also concerns me about relying strictly on court transcripts is that I have seen correspondence which would indicate that court transcripts have been permanently lost by court staff and therefore it would appear to be some question as to the security surrounding court transcripts.
In regards to recording in the courtroom, I believe that most Canadians would take the position that those in a courtroom who have nothing to hide should have no fear of any the parties recording the court hearing. I am curious to know just what Her Worship L. Ross is so afraid of that would cause her to obstruct my rights in this area.
To avoid the problem I encountered from being repeated in other courts, I would most respectfully request that the Justice of the Peace Review Board or the powers responsible, to put out a memorandum to the justices of the peace
to clarify this issue and to remind them that they MUST not interfere with a party's request to audio record their own court hearing if the party is doing it in a reasonable manner.
In light of this complaint, I would also kindly ask that the Justice of the Peace Review Board advise Her Worship L. Ross
that she should recuse herself from hearing any court matter before her where I may be a party at the hearing.
A response in writing would be most appreciated.
Yours truly

Dan Perrins

Now here is the reply that I received from the Review Council but I ask that you re-read points 1 and 2 where it is stated that the 3 Justices of the peace obstructed justice and violated their sworn oath as a Justice of the Peace.

P.O. BOX 914 CR914
us
ADELAIDE STREET POSTAL STATION SUCCURSALE ADELAIDE
31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST 31, RUE ADELAIDE EST
TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2K3 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5C 2K3
I ET
THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE REVIEW COUNCIL
CONSEIL DEVALUATION DES JUGES DE PAIX
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL November 5, 2010
Mr. Dan Perrins
XXXXXXXXXXXX Dundas, Ontario XXX - XXX


Dear Mr. Perrins:

We have received your letter, dated November 3, 2010, in relation to the decision of Her Worship L. Ross and your two letters, dated November 4, 2010; in relation to the decisions of Her Worship Devellano and an unnamed female justice of the peace.

We note that your letters do not raise allegations of conduct. Rather, you have raised concerns with how the justices of the peace have interpreted and applied section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act. In addition, you have asked the Review Council to issue a memorandum to dictate to justices of the peace how the law should be interpreted or applied. You have also asked that the Council to advise these justices of the peace that they should each recuse themselves from hearing any court matter in which you may be a party.

The Justices of the Peace Review Council is an independent body with legislative authority to investigate allegations of conduct of justices of the peace. The Review Council does not have legislative authority to review the decisions of justices of the peace, or how they have determined legal issues. Nor does the Council have the authority to provide the remedies that you are seeking. Additionally, and regardless of authority, the Council also cannot intervene or interfere, or be seen to be intervening or interfering, with matters that are on-going before the court.

Judicial officers have a constitutionally protected right of judicial independence. If you disagree with how a justice of the peace has applied or interpreted the law, you would need to pursue your legal remedies through the courts. With respect to your request that these justices of the peace be told to recuse themselves from a case, a lawyer is in the best position to provide you with advice on your legal remedies or options in a particular proceeding. If you wish to obtain legal advice or retain a lawyer in Ontario, you may contact the Lawyer Referral Service operated by the Law Society of Upper Canada by telephone at: General: 416-947-3330 or Toll-free: 1-800-268-8326. That office can refer you to a lawyer for a free consultation of up to 30 minutes to help you determine your rights and options. During the consultation with the lawyer, you may ask the lawyer what it might cost to have any legal work done. You may find more information on the Lawyer Referral Service's website at: http://www.Isuc.on.ca/public/a/faqs --- lawyer-referral-service.
I hope that information is of assistance.


Yours truly,

Marilyn B. King Registrar

TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 327-5746 TTY/TELEIMPRIMEUR (416) 327-6480
OR 1-800-773-8807 OR 1-800-695-1118
FAX/TELECOPIEUR (416) 327-2339

Now the definition of obstruct justice is to be found in the Criminal Code of Canada located here:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-4.html#anchorbo-ga:l_IV-gb:...

Under section 139 (2) this and believe it or not it is the law ,,consolidated law (you know laws that are to be enforced and applied)

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

So if the direct result of violating section 136 (2) of The Courts of Justice act (granting parties acting in person ,, representing myself) grants me the right to record proceedings to supplement my notes for the proceedings are ignored even though I directed the Justices of the Peace to the relevant law the only conclusion can be that their acts were intentional and therefore was a direct action to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
So why if I make the statement that the above noted Justices of the Peace OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE in point 2 would the review council fail to do their duty to not only me but to all citizens in Hamilton a very plausible answer would be that it would bring the administration of justice here in Hamilton into disrepute and would make for some very bad publicity for the current Attorney General and or the Liberal Party.

One last bit of Law that shines the light on who is responsible for the Administration of Justice in Ontario. It is to be found under section 5(c) of the Attorney General Act which goes like this:

Functions

5.The Attorney General,

(a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council;

(b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law;

(c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario;

Now if you look at the classic definition of superintend it means to direct or oversee with authority and this includes the actions of Hamilton Police Services even though the ministry will deny it but that was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2 cases
First one: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Di Iorio v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152

Second one:

MacKeigan v. Hickman, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796

This is the ruling found at p. 205 of the first case the second case re-affirms it but makes the distinction that the R.C.M.P. do not fall under the Provincial Attorney General

Under head 92(14) of our Constitution, as I understand it, law enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the Province and in all provinces the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown. He has broad responsibilities for most aspects of the Administration of Justice. Among these within the field of criminal justice, are the court system, the police, criminal investiga­tion and prosecutions, and corrections. The provin­cial police are answerable only to the Attorney General as are the provincial Crown Attorneys who conduct the great majority of criminal pros­ecutions in Canada.

Now how many times have I pointed out to the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General regarding the administration of justice or the lack there of ??
Well for starters have a look on this website for your answer, numerous so many that I care not to count them right now but how about a tape recorded phone call to the ministry itself. That should be an interesting day in court when I enter it into evidence about how the Attorney General is either incompetent or is a willing participant in the obstruction of justice in Hamilton

Ok enough posting for one day more will follow as I am back and full resolve to see that justice is provided equally and without prejudice.
So if you care about being treated equally when your matters are being heard before the Hamilton Courts write a letter asking your local politician why they have chosen to do nothing about this situation but remember it is your taxes that will be raised when this is over and I take it all to the civil courts just like that poor mistreated couple from Caledonia. Something still bothers me about that why is it that the Ontario Government made it a requirement that the true amount of the settlement was kept from the voting population?